Sitting of 30 January 2002

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

    Tibet
    Norman Baker: What steps she is taking to assist the people of Tibet. [29124]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): In Tibet, we are supporting two projects run by Save the Children UK. These are providing basic services to poor Tibetan communities to improve their access to education, clean water and sanitation. We also contribute to the EU's programme in Tibet.
    Norman Baker: I welcome that news. Will the Minister ensure that any projects supported by his Department enhance the political, cultural and economic rights of the indigenous people of Tibet? That is especially important given that China, the occupying power, is very keen to use its western economic development strategy to "crush splittism", as it puts it.
    Hilary Benn: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman takes a particular and keen interest in human rights in Tibet. The House must remember that the poor have human rights too. That is why it is right that we should be involved in the projects that we support. In the longer term, the economic development of China and Tibet provides opportunities to improve the dialogue between us on human rights, for the simple reason that, in the end, a more open society is one in which it is more difficult to abuse human rights.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I am sure that the Minister will agree that our thoughts are with the people of Tibet as they face the serious illness of the Dalai Lama. However, are the Government doing anything to help the displaced people from Tibet, especially those in India?
    Hilary Benn: I am sure that the House will echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. The Government have been funding a higher education project for Tibetan refugees in Dharamsala in India.

    Natural Disasters (Africa)
    Dr. Nick Palmer: What steps she is taking to support preparations for a rapid reaction capability in Africa for flooding and other natural disasters. [29125]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): My Department is working to strengthen international disaster response across the world by strengthening the capacity of the United Nations system. However, following any disaster, most lives are saved in the first few hours by the immediate local effort. We therefore support work across the world, particularly through the Red Cross, to build up local and national capacity for immediate response.
    Following the floods in Mozambique two years ago, we have been working through the UN to increase the capacity of the Government of Mozambique to respond to disasters. We are making a similar effort in India, following the lessons of the Gujerat earthquake.
    Dr. Palmer: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She may remember that I and many other MPs raised this matter after the Mozambique floods. We were concerned that support infrastructure—helicopters, emergency supplies, and so on—was not available on the continent of Africa, and had to be brought in from Britain and elsewhere. Is there a role for additional continental reaction capability, going beyond the individual countries involved, to enable us to respond to disasters anywhere in Africa?
    Clare Short: We are trying to work through the UN to make sure that stocks are deployed across the world that can be drawn on in any disaster. My hon. Friend might recall that, despite all the arguments that took place about helicopters from the UK, the cheapest and most readily available helicopters came from South Africa. They were deployed very quickly, although we had to provide the fuel. My hon. Friend will remember the little girl who was born in a tree. She and her mother were lifted out of that tree by a South African helicopter using UK-supplied fuel.
    People think of sending material directly from their home countries, but that is usually very slow. My Department has lots of stocks that can be deployed when they are needed, but we are trying to achieve a regional and national response to disasters, as people often lose their lives when resources have to be brought in from a long distance.
    Tony Baldry: A rapid reaction facility such as the Secretary of State has described may well have been of help to the Democrat Republic of the Congo after the recent volcano eruption. However, is it not important that such initiatives do not distract us from the need to ensure sufficient sustainable development? In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, two-thirds of people face malnourishment, and the UN consolidated appeal for the Congo is only 40 per cent. funded. There is sometimes a danger that we focus on the headlines created by initiatives such those described by the right hon. Lady,

    273
    without sufficient attention being paid to the underlying need for sustainable development in countries such as the Congo, and others elsewhere in Africa.
    Clare Short: Clearly, the Goma disaster was very bad. Everyone saw the graphic pictures. But the international response was quite effective. I talked to President Kagame yesterday. People are in need because they have lost possessions, but the situation is under control. The response was pretty good.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a disastrous situation in the poor benighted Democratic Republic of the Congo. From colonial times to the present day, people there have never had decent governance. Obviously, we must respond to the humanitarian disaster, but the real disaster is that the conflict is not properly resolved. The country is divided into three parts. We need full implementation of the Lusaka peace accords so that we can establish a full-blooded development programme. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a heavily indebted poor country, and if we could resolve that problem, the country would get debt relief and we could start to reconstruct what is really another failed state.
    Ms Oona King: I have just returned from Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the site of that catastrophic volcano eruption. Will the Department for International Development look at improving co-ordination of relief efforts, as a refugee camp that I visited at Gisenye was sadly lacking in that regard? Having said that, I congratulate DFID on the work that it has done.
    Does the Secretary of State agree that behind this humanitarian catastrophe lies a man-made catastrophe that has claimed 2.5 million lives in the past three years? Will she and the Government push very hard to move forward the Lusaka peace process, as she has said?
    Clare Short: I will indeed look into the matter that my hon. Friend raises concerning the situation in Goma and see what more we can do. I agree with her second point. The cameras arrive quickly at a natural disaster, but the long-sustained tragedy of poor governance and endless war, death and loss in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, like the long-standing civil war in Sudan, is of no interest to the media, even though both countries are massive—as big as western Europe. We have an opportunity, if we are sufficiently determined, to bring peace. That will transform the prospects of the people of those two countries and of Africa, and we should make a bigger effort.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: After a spate of disasters in Africa, both man-made and natural, will the Secretary of State, like me, send her condolences to the people of Lagos after their recent tragedy? We hear a lot, and rightly, about the reconstruction of Afghanistan, but the spotlight of the world, as the right hon. Lady has said, moves quickly from one disaster to another.
    274
    What plans, if any, are there for the reconstruction of dwellings in Goma? We have discussed water and sanitation before, but what plans are there for the reconstruction of accommodation for the people of Goma following the recent volcanic eruptions?
    Clare Short: I am sure that the House will want to send condolences to the families of the many people who lost their lives in Lagos after the explosion of ammunition that made people think that a war or a coup was starting; there was terrible loss of life, through panic rather than through injuries suffered as a direct result of the explosions. I will write to the hon. Lady about the reconstruction of dwellings in Goma. We will stay engaged.
    I agree that it is the tragedies that do not hit the headlines that are killing more people and destroying more lives. That is where we must concentrate our efforts so that the people of Goma have a better life within a Democratic Republic of the Congo that is properly governed and can start real economic development.
    Mr. John Battle: As well as concentrating on immediate natural disasters, surely it is important to take a long view for Africa. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Prime Minister to visit Africa and to co-ordinate a Marshall aid-style Africa initiative to ensure that Africa is not locked out of globalisation for the future, and that it does not suffer a reverse, with people dying of starvation on an even greater scale for lack of initiatives being taken now?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. A third of the poor of the world live in Africa but the poverty is deeper and progress is slower than anywhere else in the world. Across the continent, on current levels of economic growth, there will be growing poverty. We need a massive effort in Africa, which, as my hon. Friend will know, the Prime Minister is to visit shortly. We must resolve some of the long-standing conflicts, and with enough international attention, I am sure that major progress is possible. Then we will need more investment, faster economic growth and more trade access. That is what the New Partnership for African Development, led by President Mbeki, is all about. The Prime Minister is determined to be a partner of that and to mobilise the G7 and the rest of the international community to make an effort to improve development in Africa, which we urgently support.

    Afghanistan
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions she has had with her European counterparts on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. [29126]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Last week I attended the Tokyo conference on the reconstruction of Afghanistan, where I met my counterparts from a number of European countries, the European Commission and representatives of other Governments and international institutions.
    We discussed the need for continuing humanitarian assistance and strengthening of the Afghan interim administration's capacity to deliver to its people. We also

    275
    agreed that there was an urgent need to improve security and begin the process of demobilisation of armed factions and the building of an Afghan army and police force.
    Miss McIntosh: Does the Secretary of State share my sadness at the death of the lion in captivity in Kabul, which became a symbol of the struggle in Afghanistan? Will she tell the House what discussions she has held with her European counterparts about the particular problem that arises from the fact that most of the assistance to Afghanistan is announced only one year in advance? Will she push for longer-term commitments to Afghanistan?
    Clare Short: We are all sorry to see a lion die—although I think it was an old lion. I hope that he had led a happier life than many of the people of Afghanistan. I read that in some countries the appeal for funds for the zoo in Afghanistan secured more funding than appeals for the people of Afghanistan. Something is out of proportion if that was the case, although we should care for animals and people.
    I agree with the hon. Lady's underlying point. We must stay committed to Afghanistan for the long term. The country cannot be rehabilitated in a year. That is why we made a five-year commitment. We are working strongly with Commissioner Patten for a long-term commitment from the EC, and although he could not do that formally, he was trying to achieve a commitment to mobilise 1 billion euro rather than merely making a one-year commitment. Some countries took a long-term view; others did not. We must do all that we can to keep a sustained engagement so as to give Afghanistan a chance.
    Mr. Clive Soley: The Secretary of State may be aware that there are many Afghan refugees in my constituency. A significant number of them, many of whom have extremely good skills, would like to return to Afghanistan to help in the reconstruction. However, it is not always easy, especially if they have been out of contact for a long time, to find a point of reference there—someone to whom they can notify their skills and whom they can ask that they be used appropriately. Has there been any thought about that and are any contacts emerging in the new Afghan Government to whom I could refer a growing number of people?
    Clare Short: I, too, have 100 or so Afghan asylum seekers in my constituency, many of whom are highly skilled and educated. I am sure that that is true all over the world. Many skilled and educated Afghans left the country and we must do all that we can to try to assist them so that they can help in the rebuilding of their country. The International Organisation for Migration—a UN body—has set up a register and is asking all Afghans in the diaspora who are interested in helping to register their skills. The organisation is keeping a tally of the skills needed in Afghanistan. We will thus be able to match people up and help them to go home permanently or temporarily to help in the reconstruction.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: May I ask the Secretary of State again whether she is concerned that the UK contribution to humanitarian aid and the reconstruction of Afghanistan is being met entirely by the Department for International Development? That is
    276
    despite the fact that £100 million has been made available to the Ministry of Defence from Treasury reserves for operations there. The right hon. Lady will remember that during the Kosovo crisis the Treasury reserves contributed £68 million to the efforts of DFID. Will she assure the House that the cupboard will not be bare in the event of another natural disaster? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.
    Clare Short: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    I welcome increases in my budget from anywhere in the Government system. If the hon. Lady can persuade the Treasury to contribute more to my budget, I shall welcome it. On the other hand, we have to deploy our resources flexibly—especially resources for disasters, because we never know where disasters will occur. As I explained, we have a contingency reserve within my budget and when that is exhausted we go to the Treasury. I cannot remember whether we received £10 million or £20 million from the Treasury towards Afghanistan, but the rest of the commitment comes from my budget. That means that if there was a series of disasters across the world I should be in difficulty, although, of course, we are approaching the end of a financial year. We cope and we deploy our budget well, but we spend every farthing. More would be welcome and if the hon. Lady could help me with the Treasury I should be enormously grateful.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in Afghanistan, as elsewhere, Britain's contribution is both bilateral and multilateral; that her Department has given an excellent lead; and that if, following the events of 11 September, which themselves followed devastation in Afghanistan, we can give the Afghans the same recognition that we gave to the Kurds, that would be a noble objective?
    Clare Short: My right hon. Friend is right. The contributions that the UK is making to the reconstruction of Afghanistan and to development across the world include not only our direct British programme but the contributions that my budget makes to the World Bank and the Asian development bank. Moreover, 20 per cent. of the EC contribution will draw down on my budget. However, it is right that we should have a strong multilateral system that can work everywhere, including countries where we have a particular partnership. We are deploying all those resources and I am really hopeful that if the international community sustains its engagement, we can guarantee the people of Afghanistan a better future and bring good out of bad. We must all work for that.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: On Monday, in her statement about the rebuilding of Afghanistan, the Secretary of State said that Britain would assist the new interim administration with what she called a scoping study on security. What does that mean and how long will it take? What is the likely commitment of British resources to that study?
    Clare Short: The scoping study is the initial study that assesses the size of the country, makes the best possible estimate of the number of forces under arms and starts to

    277
    think through the process of demobilisation and work out where to train the armed forces. Obviously, the armed forces need to serve the whole country, so they should be representative ethnically, but then exclusive ethnic groups in parts of the country—there are minorities—would not be properly protected. In other words, it is the initial study, getting the numbers, beginning to think of the process that would take things forward, then sharing the information with the international community, to reach agreement with the interim administration on a process of putting it into action. We have conducted similar studies, in Sierra Leone before we started that work, and in other countries such as Indonesia, where the security sector needs reform. We hope to get that study moving fast, share the information internationally and then, hopefully, start the process of demobilisation and the building of new security forces.

    Electricity Supply (Africa)
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What further action she is taking to improve the access to electricity of isolated communities in Africa. [29127]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): In many sub-Saharan African countries less than 10 per cent. of the population have access to electricity. That means that most rely on wood for fuel, which uses up forest resources and causes much ill health through pollution caused by cooking indoors. Africa needs massive new investment in infrastructure—in electricity, water, sanitation, transport and telecommunications. To achieve that requires a reduction of conflict, and stronger partnerships between the public and private sectors.
    We have therefore been working with other agencies to create a new facility, which is known as the public-private infrastructure advisory facility, to advise Governments on how to create conditions to attract private investment in infrastructure. I am this evening launching an investment fund designed to leverage more private investment into infrastructure in Africa.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that renewable energy options such as small-scale windpower plant and solar power offer an environmentally friendly, affordable and reliable means of generating power for the schools, health clinics, irrigation systems and other vital services on which those communities rely? What further action will her Department take to promote the roll-out and easy accessibility of such power options?
    Clare Short: I do not particularly agree with my hon. Friend. I am in favour of the deployment of modern technology and as many renewables as possible, but Africa needs basic electricity supplies, telecommunications, water systems and sanitation. Sometimes people bring their greenest agenda to the poorest countries. Yes, let us use the best possible technology, but Africa needs the basics, and we should do all in our power to bring investment in modern infrastructure to countries across the board, not just some nice renewables in odd projects.
    Michael Fabricant: This is a first. For the first time, I totally agree with the right hon. Lady. She is
    278
    absolutely right because the cost of photovoltaic cells and windmills would be prohibitive, particularly in the developing world. Does she agree that the work of many of the British privatised companies, now providing not only networks for electricity but self-contained electrical generating units in portakabins, is possibly the short-term answer for those countries that so desperately need electricity in their rural areas?
    Clare Short: I should like to enjoy agreeing with the hon. Gentleman—I see that he is wearing his red tie today, so perhaps that explains it. Let us be clear that we should all favour the development of renewables, but we should drive forward that technology in countries such as our own, rather than trying to get the poorest countries to pay for the experiments and the development of the new technology. Self-contained generators are used in many poor countries because the basic national systems are so poor and tend to be more expensive, and firms have to use that kind of technology when their national systems do not work. But we really need proper privatisation under good regulation so that we can get private sector investment and better energy provision, and therefore access to telecommunications and the internet, which most Africans lack at the moment.
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the completion of the European Union reform programme will make a difference to the EU development programme for the poor countries?
    Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that an important start has been made in reforming the European Commission's very poor quality development programme, but we have a long way to go until that reform agenda is implemented. New figures are available if we do the calculations. EC funding to poor countries has gone from 70 per cent. down to 50 per cent., and it will be 38 per cent. this year. That is disgraceful, and more EC resources need to be allocated according to need and poverty. I am afraid that we still have a long way to go.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: In considering access to electricity in isolated communities in Africa, I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that among the most isolated communities at the moment are those in Zimbabwe that are at the mercy of Mugabe's thugs. What is her view of the way in which electricity is currently being supplied from South Africa? Does she feel that she and her Department have any role to play in exerting effective pressure to stop Mugabe and his thugs grabbing land from those who are the legitimate owners?
    Clare Short: I do not agree that Zimbabwe's isolation is the problem, but it has virtually every other problem, and the situation is disastrous economically and politically. We all have to work as hard as we can for free and fair elections. That looks difficult and we cannot be optimistic, but we have to sustain our efforts. There is no magic answer; we can call for all the tools of international pressure—indeed, as the hon. Gentleman will know, they are being deployed as we speak—but the situation continues to deteriorate. I do not know whether it gives any comfort to the hon. Gentleman to know that President Mugabe finds our Government very much more objectionable than the Government whom the hon.

    279
    Gentleman supported. President Mugabe objects to me in particular because I took the view that land reform should be transparent and benefit the people, rather than be used to give land to cronies.

    European Community Aid
    Hugh Bayley: What steps she is taking in the Council of Ministers to ensure that more EU aid is spent on helping poor people in the poorest countries. [29128]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): Poor countries should be given priority in the allocation of European Community development funds. In November 2000, my right hon. Friend helped to secure the first ever commitment by the EC to poverty reduction as the central objective of its programmes. However, that commitment has yet to be put into practice. As my right hon. Friend has just told the House, the percentage of EC aid being spent in poor countries remains low. We also continue to press for a far more effective EC aid programme.
    Hugh Bayley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most effective aid is that spent on helping poor people in poor countries whose Governments are committed to pro-poor development? Does he recognise that the proportion of EU aid going to low-income countries is not only low but declining, having decreased from 70 per cent. in 1989 to 51 per cent. in 1999? Will he reassure the House that our Government are voicing the strongest possible arguments in the Council of Ministers and in bilateral relationships with other EU member states to increase the proportion spent for poor people?
    Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the declining proportion of the EU's aid budget that goes to poor countries, which is precisely why all of us have a responsibility to ensure that that changes. As he will be aware from his visit, along with other members of the Select Committee, to Brussels last week, that has been going on for a very long time, and it is to my right hon. Friend's credit that we have told the EC that that needs to begin to change, but it will be a long haul if we are to make progress, and we need to work together.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I applaud the efforts to ensure that the poorest people in the poorest countries get all the aid that can be made available to them, but does the Minister agree that in Zimbabwe, which should be one of the wealthiest countries in Africa, there are extremely poor people? Does he also accept that a new poor is being created, consisting of those who have been forced to flee from the brutality of the Mugabe regime? Could not our Government give further consideration to assisting those British citizens who have been displaced and forced to return to the United Kingdom?
    Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the very difficult situation in Zimbabwe and the effect that it has had on the people whom he mentioned. We are giving humanitarian support, including food aid, which is a measure of how bad the situation currently is.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Laura Moffatt: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Laura Moffatt: The Prime Minister will be aware that a review of health services in and around Crawley has been taking place. Will he join me in thanking all the people who have taken part in the review, particularly Councillor Brenda Smith, our independent chair, Peter Bagnall and the health campaigner, Christine Earnell? Is that not a fine example of the new ways of working in the national health service that have been so well illustrated in the modernisation board report?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate all those who have been involved in the review of health services in my hon. Friend's constituency. I understand that they will consider a final report from the review team tomorrow.
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress that the modernisation board report of a couple of weeks ago said that, although there were still major challenges in the national health service, there were real signs of improvement as a result of the investment going in and the reform. That is why we believe it is so important that the continued, sustained investment in the national health service continues, and that it is matched by reform to deliver the national health service that the people of this country want.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree that accident and emergency services are in crisis across the country?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not. The most recent analysis of accident and emergency services appeared in the modernisation board report. It showed that, although there was still a long way to go, as a result of the extra investment, by March this year 75 per cent. of people requiring such services should have to wait four hours or less, and that, by 2004, that should be the case for everyone. That does not mean that there are not real pressures on casualty departments in many parts of the country, but the only answer is the one that I have given before, which is to put in the additional investment that gives us the consultants, the nurses and beds that we need.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: In March 1997, the then Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister's questions that accident and emergency departments across the country
    "are in acute and chronic crisis and … many simply cannot make do."—[Official Report, 4 March 1997; Vol. 291, c. 707.]
    Well, at that point, three quarters of patients were seen by a doctor in casualty within the hour. After five years of a Labour Government, only half are seen in that time and a

    281
    quarter are not even admitted within four hours. Will the Prime Minister now accept that accident and emergency services are in acute and chronic crisis across the country?
    The Prime Minister: No, I will not. Let me inform the right hon. Gentleman of the change that has been made by this Government. Whereas his Government used to measure the time that people spent in accident and emergency from when they were first seen, we measure it from when they enter the accident and emergency department. I am afraid that he has got his facts wrong.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Yet again, the Prime Minister talks a lot of nonsense. In opposition, he was busy crying foul; now in government, it is, "Everything will get better—trust me."
    Last week, the Prime Minister said that he stands by health professionals, so perhaps he would like to listen to the words of the consultant at Kent and Canterbury hospital, who said that
    "the state of A&E is dreadful. People sit there for three or four days in an open corridor. The standards of care are unacceptable. The nurses go round in tears".
    Will the Prime Minister perhaps accept, as he was so keen to do in opposition, that accident and emergency services are now in crisis?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that. What I certainly do accept, however, is that there are accident and emergency departments across the country that are under real pressure. What is important is that just as we should not pretend that the national health service is perfect, the right hon. Gentleman should not pretend that the service is rubbish. We know exactly why he is doing that. The answer to the pressure in accident and emergency is extra consultants. There have been 60 extra since we came to power. By 2004 that will have increased by two thirds over the 1997 figures. There are also 600 additional accident and emergency nurses. In addition, as a result of the £120 million package announced last October, improvements are happening across the country, including in Kent and Canterbury. The only answer is to keep that investment going in. Can we now have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman, as we have given our answers: is he in favour of that investment or not?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister is very keen to ask us about that, but figures available in the past few days show that public investment in public services has fallen below that of the previous Government. Before he gets too sanctimonious, we must first of all ask him the same question: is he prepared to accept, on his own measure and own figures, that he has made a mistake and got it wrong? One minute he says that the public servants leave scars on his back; the next moment he is running to hide behind them when there is a problem. He then turns the entire weight of his Government and their machine on a 94-year-old lady-[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: He turns the machine on people who complain because they have nowhere else to go.
    282
    When will he grasp the fact that the problems in the NHS are not the fault of the doctors, the nurses or the patients, but his fault, and that the buck stops with him?
    The Prime Minister: We are putting substantial sums of additional investment into the national health service. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that when we did so, the Conservative party called that extra spending reckless, irresponsible and dangerous. I gather that he is now saying that we never spent enough on the national health service—a slightly curious position for the Conservative party to be in.
    We have made it clear throughout that the national health service faces huge challenges: it is bound to—there are 5.5 million operations a year and 12.5 million or 13 million out-patient appointments, and 270 million people see their GPs. We know there are challenges, but as the independent review by the modernisation board found, there are also real improvements. My point is that we will sustain those improvements only if we keep the money going in and match it with reform. So far, we have failed to get any indication at all from the Conservative party that it supports that investment. We have our strategy on the health service, and the Conservatives have theirs. Our strategy is to rebuild the national health service; their strategy is to run it down so that they can dismantle it.
    Valerie Davey: Communities in Bristol that are experiencing crime and violence that is directly linked to class A drugs are working closely with the police. Their efforts and co-operation are leading to an increased number of arrests, yet the availability of those drugs remains high. What more can the Government do to ensure that those drugs are prevented from entering the country?
    The Prime Minister: I know, as my hon. Friend rightly says, that there are serious problems in her constituency and elsewhere as a result of that particular drugs trade. She will know, however, that Avon and Somerset police are working closely with Customs and Excise and that they recently met the authorities from Jamaica and are constructing a programme to deal with that issue. I very much hope, as a result of the measures that we are taking with the Jamaican authorities, that we can stop a lot of those drugs coming to this country. They cause nothing but misery and mayhem for people on our streets and we have to do everything we can, nationally and internationally, to stop the trade.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Why is it that, since the right hon. Gentleman's party came to power, the number of cancelled national health service operations has gone up by 50 per cent?
    The Prime Minister: It is true that the number of cancelled operations is unacceptably high, but it is also true that 19 out of 20 operations happen on time in the way that they are supposed to.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Government's own figures, given only on 23 January this year, show that last year 77,000 people had to put up with the trauma of a cancelled operation. All of us know from our constituencies that bed blocking is a national scandal and that there are elderly

    283
    people in hospital wards who should be in residential care, yet the Government have not yet adequately tackled the problem. Do patients not deserve better than that?
    The Prime Minister: They do deserve better, which is why it is important that we reduce waiting lists and waiting times. Seventy per cent. of people in this country now get their operation within three months, and as a result of the extra nurses and consultants now coming into the health service, we are making progress on every single aspect of waiting lists.
    However, the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about bed blocking is right, which is why, before Christmas, we put some £300 million extra, over and above the original budget, into bed blocking; as a result, delayed discharges in the past few months have fallen by about 12 per cent.
    Denzil Davies: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that the European Commission has censured the Government of Germany for straying too close to the 3 per cent. ceiling on borrowing, as set out in the Maastricht treaty? Given that Germany is struggling to get out of a recession, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Commission's action shows that there is a fundamental flaw in both the 3 per cent. limitation and the absurdly named growth and stability pact?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my right hon. Friend has strong views on those issues, but I must tell him that I am not responsible for the German Government. I am thankful that as a result of the brilliant management of the economy by our Chancellor debt and public finances in this country are in an extremely healthy state.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: If the Government are prepared to spend at least £100 million, or £5 for every taxpayer in the country, on the Saville inquiry into an event that happened at least 30 years ago, how can the Prime Minister justify, on either cost or delay grounds, not holding a full public inquiry into the foot and mouth disaster—an event that happened only 30 days ago?
    The Prime Minister: The answer is that in the events of Bloody Sunday many people lost their lives. With foot and mouth, it is important to learn the lessons properly and direct agriculture forward for the future. That was the purpose of the Anderson inquiry report published yesterday. However, the situation regarding Bloody Sunday is quite different. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's implication that we should not have set up that inquiry. Sometimes it is important to get to the truth of what happened, even though it was a long time ago, because what happened a long time ago affects the present day as well.
    Julie Morgan: Is the Prime Minister aware that nearly £300 million has now been committed to objective 1 areas in Wales? Will he make certain that the interests of Wales are represented in the decision on the follow-up programme that will take place
    284
    after 2006, in the same way that he made certain that Wales, the valleys and west Wales benefited from a programme in 1998?
    The Prime Minister: We shall certainly make sure that people are properly consulted on the next phase. It is as well to emphasise one point. As my hon. Friend rightly said, some £300 million is going to west Wales and the valleys, which is boosted by match funding of £400 million or thereabouts. As a result, there will be substantial additional investment in west Wales and the valleys. As a result of the work that has been done and the state of the economy, the hon. Lady will know that, although unemployment remains a severe and real problem in those areas, the fall in unemployment there has been the largest of any constituent part of the UK.
    John Barrett: The Prime Minister will be aware of the widespread concern that exists about deep vein thrombosis and its connection with long-distance flights. Does he share my concern that the World Health Organisation study into DVT has not only failed to begin, but will take two and a half years to complete? What measures will the Government take in the interim to ensure the safety of the one in 10 people who develop blood clots on international flights, which can develop into life-threatening conditions?
    The Prime Minister: We issued guidance on the subject in November, as I understand it. The World Health Organisation report will take some time, but it is as well to wait for what will be a detailed piece of research. That should provide us with the basis for further guidance. In the meantime, people will be well advised to follow the guidance that has already been issued.
    Phil Sawford: I recently visited the new cardiac ward at Kettering general hospital where I saw the new building to house our MRI scanner, which will shortly be in service, and in a few days I shall attend the official opening of the hospital's new creche facility. [Interruption.]Is my right hon. Friend aware of the stark contrast between the situation now and with the public appeals, bingo sessions and car boot sales that we used to rely on to fund health services in Kettering when the Conservative party was in power?
    The Prime Minister: The Conservatives were howling at my hon. Friend because they do not like to hear any good news about the health service. He is right. The MRI scanners that are going not just to his constituency but to other constituencies, and the fact that more than 90 per cent. of people with suspected cancer are seen within two weeks, are important signs of progress, but of course there remains far more to do.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Prime Minister tell us how much the RMT has given to the Labour party over the past financial year?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know the precise sum, and there is no particular reason why I should. However,

    285
    the right hon. Gentleman will know that we have made our position totally clear on the strikes that are happening: they are not justifiable, which is why we condemn them.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: According to the Electoral Commission, the answer is in excess of £84,000. Of course, the union also gives extra perks to certain members of the Cabinet, whom we already know. Yet that is a union—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Leader of the Opposition speak.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: That union is causing misery for millions of rail passengers throughout the country. While passengers trying to get to work are losing money, the Prime Minister's party is still making money from the union. It is not enough for him to say that he condemns the strikes. Will he take a lead, take action and sever his links with that striking union?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear that we regard the strikes as unjustified and unjustifiable. In relation to how we deal with them, the important thing is to state that clearly on behalf of the Government, and to make sure that the measures that we take enable the investment and the change in the railways to go through. The worst thing that we could do would be to adopt the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday and ban the right to strike. I do not think that that is the right way forward. Instead, we should state clearly that it is not right for the strikes to take place, and in the meantime to make sure that we put into the railways the investment that is needed.
    Mr. David Crausby: With a majority both inside and outside the House in favour of a ban on hunting with hounds, will my right hon. Friend put us out of our misery by telling us that he will introduce such a measure urgently and ensure that there is enough time for it to proceed successfully through both Houses?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I am not going to put my hon. Friend out of his misery yet. As we have made clear before, and as I said in the House a couple of weeks ago, the House will have an opportunity to vote on the issue. We will announce the date of the vote at the appropriate time.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Prime Minister agree with York district hospital, York city council, which is run by the Labour party, and the Selby and York primary care trust that their problem is lack not of money but of care home places? The Government have presided over a historic loss of 50,000 care home places in the past five years. In the city of York alone, we are looking for 50 care places. The Prime Minister has increased the costs of private care homes; what does he propose to do about it today?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Lady's figures, and I do not know her trust's specific position. However, I would be surprised if it claims that the problem has nothing to do with money. Many care homes face serious problems because of the level of fees
    286
    and because they have been under huge and increasing pressure through, for example, bed blocking and other issues that we discussed a moment or two ago. The only method of sorting out better social care for people is through investing in it and reconfiguring our organisation of it, as primary care trusts throughout the country are doing.
    Mr. Andy Reed: Is the Prime Minister aware that participation in community sport continues to fall in this country? My appearances for Burstall rugby club's first team have nothing to do with late recognition of my skills; we simply no longer have a second or third team. Will my right hon. Friend join me and others who have signed early-day motion 702 and ensure that the Chancellor introduces tax exemptions for such clubs in his Budget, which he suggested he would like to do, rather than following the charitable route? That would make an enormous difference to 150,000 sports clubs throughout the country and to the 1.5 million volunteers who give their time for sport.
    The Prime Minister: I suspect that that will be the first of many Budget representations. I understand that the Treasury has issued a consultation document on the matter; we are considering it.
    Annabelle Ewing: Following the revelations of the past few days, will the Prime Minister accept that the Arthur Andersen private finance initiative report on which the Government relied is fundamentally tainted and that his flagship PFI policy has been holed below the waterline?
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on the PFI, which found that it was excellent value for money. She should also talk to people throughout the country who have seen new hospital buildings, GP premises and school buildings, not least in Scotland, built through a partnership between the public and private sectors. It is important to continue to use the private sector to help to lever in greater investment when that will work. Overwhelming evidence, not only from the PricewaterhouseCoopers report but from the National Audit Commission, shows that the partnership provides good value for money. People such as the hon. Lady who oppose that must explain where they would get the money.

    Ministerial Visit (North Ayrshire)
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: When he next expects to visit north Ayrshire.
    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Donohoe: I am extremely sorry to hear that. My right hon. Friend would have been taken to meet some industrialists, especially those in the electronics industry, with which there are genuine problems. Much investment is going to Ireland because of the difference between corporation tax in the United Kingdom and in Ireland, where it is 10 per cent. Although the Chancellor has given

    287
    start-up much encouragement in this country, corporation tax remains at 30 per cent. for the rest of industry. Will my right hon. Friend do something about that?
    The Prime Minister: Again, I am sure that the Chancellor has heard that representation. However, we have made changes in corporation tax since coming to power; we have cut the rate from 33 per cent. to 30 per cent. Although that is high when compared with Ireland, I hope that my hon. Friend realises that there has recently been substantial inward investment in his part of Scotland. We have much more to do to attract more inward investment there, but I hope that he agrees that it is not all doom and gloom. Many good contracts, including a recent contract for £4 million in his constituency, give us hope for the future.

    Engagements
    Mr. Michael Foster: Conservative-controlled Worcester city council appears reluctant to use antisocial behaviour orders in the fight against you culture. Does my right hon. Friend believe that that lack of political willingness is part of the reason why such tools are not used in the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour in cities such as Worcester?
    The Prime Minister: There has been some reluctance to use them, but we must also consider their use critically and whether we can streamline their application. For example, I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is examining interim orders and methods of cutting the bureaucracy involved in obtaining such orders. Many people's problems are not the heavy crimes that hit the headlines every day, but continuing antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour orders constitute one mechamism, but not the only one, for defeating it. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must do more, and that is precisely why we are reviewing the matter and will take further action.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Prime Minister now accept that the Saville inquiry has served only to reopen deep wounds that should have been allowed to heal? Is he aware that, while the IRA's adjutant in Londonderry 30 years ago today struts around this place and raises a foreign flag in this House, the former soldiers of the Parachute Regiment stand accused by a stream of pro-IRA propaganda films on television that have served to pollute the atmosphere in which the Saville inquiry is being held? Surely the £66 million-not £52 million, as he told my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) last week—that the Government have spent on lining the lawyers' pockets would have been better spent helping the families of those who were bombed at Omagh.
    The Prime Minister: First, I do not agree that the wounds had healed; one of the reasons for having the inquiry was that they had not done so. I believe, for the reasons that I gave at the time, that it was right to have that inquiry. As for the more general position on Northern Ireland, I am sorry that the Conservatives are now effectively taking the view that they do not support the process that we have painfully tried to construct there. Whatever the difficulties involved in that process, it is a
    288
    lot better than what we had before; real progress is being made in Northern Ireland. This is a classic situation in which, if people opt for circumstances in which everything is perfect, we will simply go back to the days when nothing was working, or perfect, at all. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the peace process is right, and that the decision that we took on the inquiry is right; I stick by both of them.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: My right hon. Friend is known to care for, and provide assistance to, the mining communities, and that is welcome in those communities, is he aware of our concerns about under-achievement in education and the need for greater social care for those who are chronically sick with emphysema and bronchitis? Will he make further inquiries so that we can have the care in the mining communities that we wish to obtain from the Government?
    The Prime Minister: First, I thank my hon. Friend for his acknowledgment that we have put a substantial amount of investment into the mining communities. I have seen for myself that that has given many of those communities a new lease of life and sense of hope. He is right to make the point about payments of compensation to people with emphysema, and so on. We are doing everything that we possibly can to speed those payments up. The problem that we have had throughout is that each case has to be individually assessed. We are, however, looking at further ways of speeding up the process, and hundreds of millions of pounds have now been paid out.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that, later this year, the whole world will hear the evidence against Slobodan Milosevic in an open court, but that the United States proposes to try the terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden behind closed doors in a military court? Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to persuade President Bush that justice for the victims of 11 September should be seen to be done?
    The Prime Minister: A decision has not yet been taken about how these people should be tried. Over the past few weeks, we have seen some very unfair reporting in relation to exactly what has happened to the detainees, and in relation to the American position more generally. I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that this situation arose out of thousands of people being killed in cold blood on the streets of America. The exact status of the detainees has not yet been decided, but it is not the case that they are being mistreated. Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross are now based at the camp and are visiting the detainees; they will make a full report to the United States Government. I ask that—in respect of this issue, as of others—people wait until a decision has been taken before they attack it.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Will my right hon. Friend join me and other hon. Members in supporting No Smoking day, and set an example to the whole nation by joining the campaign to ban smoking in all rooms in the House where we meet?
    The Prime Minister: Fortunately, I am not responsible for what happens in the various Rooms of the House—

    289
    that is a matter for the House itself, I am pleased to say. In respect of the campaign against smoking, the one thing that we should be clear about is that the dangers and health risks of smoking are now absolutely clear. So the point that my hon. Friend makes in general is right, but I am afraid that her particular point is a matter for the House.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: Is the Prime Minister aware that 16 doctors wrote to me from Herefordshire's local medical committee and Leominster primary care trust to say that they cannot get their patients
    290
    admitted to hospital because there are not enough beds? Is he aware that this will get worse when the new hospital opens, as there will be even fewer beds?
    The Prime Minister: I do not doubt that there are real problems with the number of doctors, nurses and beds, but we shall not take lessons from a Conservative party who savaged the number of beds in the health service when it was in power. I hope that the hon. Gentleman gives his constituents this reply: the only way to get those extra doctors, nurses and beds is to invest in the national health service—not privatise it, which is the Tory plan.

Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter arises out of the operation of the Data Protection Act 1998, which I believe can fundamentally affect the work of Members of Parliament in representing their constituents.
On Monday of this week, I received a telephone call from a Government Department indicating that before it could reply to a letter that I had sent to it on behalf of a constituent, it required a consent form from my constituent. My constituent had written on behalf of her profoundly deaf daughter, for whom she is the carer and whose interests I have sought to represent over 18 years.
That is just one of a significant number of incidents when Government Departments, agencies and other organisations—I am thinking particularly of Consignia—have sought to deny Members information, sheltering behind the Data Protection Act. On behalf of Back-Bench Members, whose interests you, Mr. Speaker, have continuously sought to protect, would you please seek an urgent meeting with the Information Commissioner, Elizabeth France, to clarify fully and finally the manner in which Members of Parliament may be, could be and should be properly allowed to represent their constituents' interests?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I can understand his frustration, but it is not for me to say whether an Act of Parliament passed by the House has been correctly interpreted and applied. I suggest that he pursue his point with the Information Commissioner and the responsible Minister.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100(1) (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)),
That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster—
(a) on Wednesday 13th February at half-past Ten o'clock to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee; and
(b) on Tuesday 5th March at half-past Ten o'clock to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee—[Dan Norris.]
Question agreed to.

Police
3.33 pm
The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2002–03 (HC 533), which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.
In the White Paper on policing the 21st century, published before Christmas, the Government set out a radical programme for police reform with the aim of reducing crime and the fear of crime. The public want criminals caught and convicted. They want to see crime tackled, the fear of crime reduced, and antisocial behaviour and disorder tackled effectively. The White Paper sets out the ways in which we shall raise the performance of the police service across England and Wales and bring all forces up to the standard of the best.
The funding settlement that I am announcing today will help to underpin the process of police reform. Resources have been targeted to support the modernisation process. More officers will be provided through investment in the crime fighting fund, and the police service will benefit from more effective support from science, technology and information technology through Airwave and the national strategy for police information systems. We are also providing investment to enable police officers to make better use of their time and skills, through the DNA expansion programme, and there is an increased provision for capital investment in works, vehicles, information technology and other equipment.
Police resources will be maximised to put more officers on the beat, and to make better use of them when they are there. That will be achieved by better deployment of the increasing number of police officers, tackling unnecessary bureaucracy, and enhancing the capacity of support staff.
Central to that vision is an increase in the number of police officers. Our target is to achieve 130,000 officers by the end of the coming financial year. In the past two years, the Government have provided for an additional 6,000 recruits, and a further 3,000 will be financed in the coming year—all outside the general funding for police authorities covered by the police grant that we are discussing today. The crime fighting fund alone is equivalent to an additional £221 million on the provision for policing.
Mr. David Heath: Is there specific provision in the figures that the right hon. Gentleman is announcing for the additional security required following the events on 11 September? Undoubtedly, there must be police officers at our ports of entry and our airports. In Avon and Somerset, 10 police officers who could be patrolling our rural areas are permanently lost to provide cover at Bristol airport. How can we recover that funding and make up for the depleted number of officers who police our rural areas?
Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As in any year, the costs of policing terrorist activities and incidents are in part included in the police grant, but the issue of increased costs is under consideration and consultation is taking place with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have already made

293
specific provision of some £30 million over and above the police grant in the current financial year. I am not yet in a position to announce the funding for the coming year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Denham: I would not mind making a little progress, but I shall take one more intervention.
Mr. John Greenway: I want to give the Minister a word of thanks. His Department has reimbursed North Yorkshire police for the extra cost of policing Menwith Hill and Fylingdales in my constituency, and we are grateful for that. The bad news is that North Yorkshire police have still not been reimbursed the £1 million cost of policing the Selby rail crash. This is now an urgent matter, and unless some reassurance can be given before the police committee meeting next Monday, the precept in North Yorkshire, which is already going up by a third, will increase by even more in order to meet that cost.
Mr. Denham: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as swiftly as I can on the specific issue of Selby. There may be cause to discuss that problem later in the debate. Police authorities are routinely expected to absorb an element of unprecedented and unexpected costs. It has never been the case that every single penny of unexpected costs is reimbursed from the centre. I shall endeavour to get back to the hon. Gentleman regarding the specific matter of Selby.
Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend talks of unexpected costs. He will recall the disturbances in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley last year, which caused serious problems for the police budgets in West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Lancashire. Is he able to give a positive indication that those additional costs will be met?
Mr. Denham: If I may make a little progress, I shall come to that matter in a moment.
As a result of the Government's efforts, we have turned the tide on police numbers. Increases in police funding have brought about a rise in the number of police officers to 127,200, and we shall continue to build on that success this year. We expect to have record numbers of police officers—more than 128,300—in the spring, and 14 forces already have record numbers. After we have reached those record numbers, we shall need another 1,700 officers to reach next year's spring target of 130,000. Financing 3,000 recruits through the crime fighting fund next year should deliver that target.
The number of civilian support staff now stands at 56,644, which is an increase of 2,788 in the year to September 2001. Those extra support officers mean that police can spend more of their time on visible operational policing.
Police authorities and forces have pressed for funds for additional officers for many years. We have provided those funds. Indeed, had we included them in the general
294
allocation of grant this year and next, the increase in resources going directly to forces would have been not 2.9 per cent. but about 3.9 per cent.
Mrs. Anne Campbell rose—
Mr. Denham: I will take one more intervention, but I hope that Members will then let me make a little progress. I suspect that many of the issues that they want to raise will be covered later in my speech.
Mrs. Campbell: My constituents are grateful for the 40 extra officers that the Cambridgeshire police have had since September 2000. The police authority, however, maintains that unless the police rate goes up by 10 per cent., Cambridgeshire stands to lose up to 100 officers. Does my right hon. Friend regard that as scaremongering?
Mr. Denham: As my hon. Friend will know, the Cambridgeshire force is one of those that have already achieved record numbers. The determination of the exact precept is a matter for the police authority, but the settlement commits substantial resources to the police in England and Wales as a whole.
The grant allocation does not include the large amount in the crime fighting fund that will pay not just the costs of recruits in the coming year, but the salaries of those recruited in the previous two years of the fund. When that money has not been taken fully into account in the presentation of figures, the true resources available to police authorities are inevitably understated.
The police funding settlement for the coming year builds on last year's record level. Overall provision for policing will increase by 6.1 per cent., to £9,010 million. That is an increase of over 16 per cent. on the provision for 2001. By 2003–04, police funds will have risen to £9.3 billion. That is an increase of more than 20 per cent., or 12 per cent. in real terms, on provision in 2000–01. Most will be paid to police authorities as grant, either for general purposes or to support specific initiatives.
The police grant report deals with Home Office support for revenue expenditure, but revenue spending is not the whole story. I am pleased to say that we have been able to increase the provision of capital grant and supplementary credit approvals from £157.43 million in 2001–02 to £209.43 million in 2002–03. That is a substantial increase—33 per cent. Most forces will receive more capital grant and credit approval for general capital expenditure than they did this year, and none will receive less. With part of the £209 million, we will establish a £20 million grant fund to improve the police estate. The Audit Commission has remarked on the condition of police properties. The increased provision, and the opportunities for forces to bid for more from the capital fund, will lead to modernised working conditions and improved services for members of the public who go to the police.
Let me now deal with general funding. For 2002–03, the total amount of police authority general expenditure to which the Government will contribute police or rate support grant will be £7,831 million. That is an increase of £217 million on this year's provision, adjusted for the move of the National Crime Squad and National Criminal Intelligence Service to central funding. The increase

295
amounts to 2.9 per cent., but Members should bear in mind the fact that when provision for specific initiatives and capital is included, it becomes 5 per cent.
I have taken account of a number of factors in the grant settlement. On 1 April 2000, the boundaries of the Metropolitan police district were brought into line with those of the 32 London boroughs. That meant that Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey took over responsibility for the policing of areas that were formerly in the Metropolitan police district.
We have taken account of transitional costs incurred in the last three years. We had intended to discontinue the additional payments for 2002–03, but I have recognised that transitional costs will continue to be incurred, and have extended the payments for one further year. We will therefore be making special payments of grant in 2002–03 totalling £1.1 million in recognition of the additional costs resulting from the boundary changes. Hertfordshire will receive an additional £0.3 million and Surrey an additional £0.8 million.
We accept that the police funding formula is not sufficiently sophisticated or flexible to respond to the distinct characteristics and responsibilities of the Metropolitan police in carrying out capital city and national functions. For that reason, each year the Greater London Authority receives a special payment of grant on behalf of the Metropolitan police authority in addition to that provided through the funding formula.
In recognition of the Metropolitan police service's specific needs, the Metropolitan police special grant will be increased from £191 million this year to £197 million for 2002–03. That is paid as 100 per cent. Home Office grant and is not charged to London council tax payers.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister has taken account of the special national role of the police force in the capital. He will be aware that this year Manchester is hosting the Commonwealth games, an important national sporting occasion. Will he undertake not just to provide the £3 million that has already been promised, but to meet the whole of the £7.5 million cost of policing the games? If he does not, he must understand that there will be an unacceptable cost for council tax payers in Greater Manchester, or unacceptable cuts to policing in Greater Manchester.
Mr. Denham: For the record, nothing has been promised yet under this heading. The hon. Gentleman may be anticipating things that I will come to a little later, or Ceefax for the north-west, but I will deal with the Commonwealth games in due course, although the Government have already pledged some £30 million towards the cost of the Commonwealth games.
I turn to specific initiatives for revenue or operational spending, for which provision is made on top of the general allocation of funds to police authorities. The main programmes address particular pressing needs identified by police authorities. They also reflect our concern to develop particular elements of the service as part of the modernisation agenda.
I have already referred to the crime fighting fund, of which the coming financial year will be the third year. A total of £167 million is provided for the costs of continuing to employ the first 6,000 recruits, and £54 million is provided for next year's recruits. That
296
investment is critical to the delivery of 130,000 officers by spring next year. Police authorities and forces have delivered admirably against the first two years' targets for the programme.
Both revenue and capital provision is made for those forces scheduled to take Airwave, the new radio communication system, during the coming year. Capital set-up provision of £76 million is made available for the equipment and facilities that will be required locally for forces scheduled to take the service. We will also provide up to £65 million of revenue support for forces to invest in initial preparation costs and for locally determined menu services. The core service charge payable to the contractor, and likely to cost around £50 million next year, will be met centrally.
Airwave is an important building block in police modernisation. It will replace a variety of existing radio systems with a common system based on modern digital technology. Greater Manchester police was the second force to receive Airwave, in part in recognition of the need to have a modern communication system in place in time for the Commonwealth games. That spending is part of our undertaking to provide up to £500 million over three years to enable forces to adopt the system in the certainty that the main burden of the cost will be covered.
In 2000–01, the Government provided £15 million through a new rural policing fund to meet the particular problems encountered in rural or sparsely populated areas. The fund was expanded to £30 million this year and I propose to continue payment next year. The fund is targeted at rural policing issues. The 31 forces that benefit are encouraged to develop ideas and initiatives that benefit rural communities.
Mr. David Drew: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that that will be part of the negotiation that he will enter into with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions? Whatever new funding mechanism is arrived at, the problem of policing in rural areas must be recognised.
Mr. Denham: I shall say something in a moment about the funding formula, the way in which it may be re-examined and our approach to that. We will want to ensure that we look at the range of criticisms of the current funding formula.
We are particularly aware of the impact that the higher cost of living in London and the south-east can have on recruitment and retention in the area, which is why we have provided additional funding to help forces recruit and retain officers. In the coming year, £33 million will be provided for a 75 per cent. share of the cost of the London pay lead—the payment to Metropolitan and City police force officers who were recruited on, or after, 24 September 1994, and who do not receive housing allowances. Arrangements are also in place to provide an allowance to qualifying officers in other forces in the south-east. In Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Surrey and Thames Valley, the allowance is an extra £2,000 a year; in Bedfordshire, Hampshire and Sussex, it is an additional

297
£1,000. Provision is also made for funding free rail travel up to 70 miles from London for officers in the Metropolitan and City forces.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Denham: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter).
Mr. Martin Salter: Is my right hon. Friend the Minister aware that many of us have lobbied long and hard for the regional cost of living allowance for forces adjoining London? House prices in my Reading constituency, and in many others in the south-east, actually exceed those in many parts of London. Does he not recognise that it is potentially damaging to pay police officers in the Metropolitan police area an additional £6,000—my goodness, they have earned it—while paying only £2,000 to officers in other high-cost housing areas? Will the Minister undertake to review that system, which simply is not working? At the moment, the additional money is not much more than a sticking plaster.
Mr. Denham: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the allowances, which are a relatively recent development, were properly agreed with the police negotiating body through the negotiating structure—the forum in which those issues should properly be addressed. As a Hampshire MP, I, too, am aware that such issues exist in the south-east, but we must ensure that we take a proper and well-informed approach to them, rather than suggesting that we can make a difference simply by pulling a figure out of a hat. I shall now give way to my county colleague.
Sir George Young: As the right hon. Gentleman has implied, he is not unfamiliar with the problems in Hampshire. The resources that he announced at the beginning of the debate are very welcome, but unless the issue of allowances is addressed, it will be impossible to spend those resources because of the retention and recruitment problem, to which reference has just been made. Will he use such influence as he has to review as soon as possible the £1,000 allowance, which is a real barrier to getting the quality police force that we all want to see?
Mr. Denham: I want to ensure that we identify the problems precisely and tackle them effectively. It is notable that some of the police forces surrounding London appear to have much greater problems with recruitment and retention than others, even though the apparent underlying conditions are very similar. For example, Surrey, which is as geographically close to London as one can get, has very high house prices, but the Surrey force has not suffered the same recruitment difficulty as the Hampshire and Hertfordshire forces. I am anxious to work with forces in the region to identify the precise nature of the recruitment and retention problems, and such work is already in train. I want to ensure that any action taken addresses real, rather than assumed, problems, which is the approach that I tend to take. I acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed, but I think that the approach that I have identified is the right and proper way for the Government to proceed.
298
I want to touch briefly on centrally provided services, which also form part of the police funding arrangements for the coming year and account for about £170 million. Some £23 million is provided for training costs arising from the crime fighting fund, which will cover initial training for additional recruits at national police training centres. Some £61 million has been allocated to the DNA database expansion programme, and £27 million has been included for the national strategy for police information systems—NSPIS.
The planned case and custody applications will provide a number of benefits to the police. Case preparation will reduce paperwork through the creation and use of electronic files. The custody application will provide police custody officers with online guidance on all the procedures to be followed in the booking-in of suspects, and their subsequent progress through the system. The systems will be linked to each other. The accurate details that they provide will eliminate the need for police officers to fill out several different forms, and will be capable of transmission to other criminal justice systems.
All that is part of our effort to prevent the time-wasting duplication of work, and to free officers to concentrate on a job that there is no doubt requires their full professional skills.
Mr. James Paice: What the Minister has said will come as a great relief to the many who have wondered when the Government would be able to introduce a computerised custody system. However, we discussed the matter only a month or so ago when the Home Secretary introduced his White Paper. At that time, the Minister was evasive about when the system would be introduced. He appears today to be saying that that introduction is imminent. Will he give us a deadline by which he expects to introduce a computerised custody system that will reduce the ridiculous bureaucracy in police stations?
Mr. Denham: The provision that I have announced this afternoon reflects our confidence that we will make significant progress this coming year. A full system will not be in place in every part of the country this year, and it will be some time before we can roll it out across the police service as a whole. However, we recognise the need to make progress on this area of IT development. There is no doubt that poor police IT is one of the factors that limits the most effective use of police officers' time. As we identified in last autumn's study entitled "Diary of a Police Officer", the lack of appropriate IT ties police officers to the police station as they cope with unnecessary bureaucratic duties. We are determined to make progress, and the provision announced this afternoon demonstrates our desire to do so.
The National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service form a vital part of a modernised police service in tackling serious and organised crime. Both agencies have an important role to play, internationally and nationally, and the valuable work that they do in turn benefits police authorities at local level.
Provision for the NCS and NCIS was increased in 2001–02, using funds from levies on police authorities. From the coming year, both bodies will be funded directly by the Home Office. That will add to the transparency of their funding, which will no longer be a hidden deduction from the general policing provision.

299
Because of the central importance of the NCS and NCIS in the battle against serious crime, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has decided to increase provision for the NCS and NCIS from £165 million to £202 million in 2002–03. I believe that that investment in tackling serious crime will be broadly and widely welcomed.
Mr. George Osborne: Hon. Members from all parties in Cheshire recently met the chief constable of the local force, and heard the disturbing news that our police authority grant is to increase by only 1.9 per cent. in real terms. The reason, as the Minister has made clear, is that the amount being deducted from the grant to meet the allocations for the NCS and NCIS is more than the local police force was spending. As a result of the mechanism that the Minister described, the force has lost out. Will he look specifically at the Cheshire case, as it concerns both Labour and Conservative MPs in the county?
Mr. Denham: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman understands the question any more than I will understand the answer that I am about to give. However, I assure him that, having been alerted to the concerns in Cheshire by hon. Members of all parties, I am satisfied that we are right to say that the county has received an increase of 2.5 per cent. The adjustments in baselines to reflect the change in the way that the NCS and NCIS are funded do not undermine that argument, and are perfectly consistent with the ways in which adjustments to baseline budgets are always implemented by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
I shall be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to set out the case. However, I took the opportunity to check the matter earlier, and I believe that the funding increase has been appropriately represented by the Government.
A consultation exercise on the funding settlement was held in the normal way. I received 38 representations from 27 police authority areas, as well as from hon. Members, the Association of Chief Police Officers, chief constables and police authorities.
There is always concern about the size of any settlement and how the cake is cut, but, of the overall increase of 6.1 per cent., 5 per cent. will go to police authorities for the CFF, as capital, and for other specific initiatives, as well as the grant. It builds on the 10 per cent. increase in policing provision in 2001–02.
Concerns were raised about the method of adjustment to the 2001–02 baseline, on which I have touched. However, as a result of wider changes to the baseline calculations from services not affecting my Department, but in a more equitable way, we have agreed to fund an additional £5 million to that which was proposed in the autumn to make sure that, on a like for like basis, year on year, every police authority will receive a grant increase of at least 2.3 per cent. In total, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been able to identify some £11 million on top of the original policing settlement to make sure that we achieve an equitable increase for all police authorities.
Llew Smith: The Minister will be aware that for a variety of reasons, pension costs as a proportion of the total police budget are increasing.
300
Indeed, it is predicted that such costs will increase dramatically in the next few years. To what extent has he taken that into account and will he take it into account when considering the funding of the police authorities in the months and years ahead?
Mr. Denham: In the short term, the cost of pensions has been taken into account in the settlement in the normal way. However, we said in the police reform White Paper that we are looking at more significant changes to the police pension system, and we are currently working on that. There are a number of issues to address, such as having a modern benefits structure. We said in the White Paper that we would like to find a way of more satisfactorily insulating police authorities from the predictable costs of normal retirement within the pension scheme. Work on that will be continuing. For the coming year, provision has been made in the usual way and is reflected in these calculations.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Following on from that point, what advice will the Minister give police authorities about their budgeting this year? If they are anticipating a pension time bomb in several years, it might be prudent to put extra money on one side now, but if there is to be a change in a few years, there would be no possibility of putting more police on the beat. What advice will he give the authorities on coping with the future, given the uncertainty of the change ahead?
Mr. Denham: The police authorities should probably approach the corning year as they have approached previous years. If the Home Office felt that there was a need for central guidance which varied from that advice, we would send it out. However, I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) that we recognise that pensions are an issue for police authorities' budgets, and we want to deal with that as we look at the future of police pension provision. I would not like to trigger any dramatic change today in the way in which police authorities approach their budgeting for this issue for next year.
Angela Watkinson: Will the Minister acknowledge that the contributions made by police into their pension funds are almost double what many other public sector workers, such as local government officers, pay?
Mr. Denham: I accept that the contribution rate is quite high. Equally, full pension rights can be achieved after 30 years of service, which is not the case in other schemes. Indeed, an issue that arises when considering the future of pension schemes is how to achieve a system that is seen by all sides to be equitable in terms of the cost to the employer and to the police officer, and which continues to reflect the rather special nature of a police career and the duties and responsibilities of police officers. That is one reason why we have the sort of pension scheme that is in place at the moment. These are not easy matters to keep in balance, and we will need to do that as we develop our ideas on the future of the pension scheme.
David Davis: The costs that the Minister has been talking about, and others,

301
put particular pressure on some police forces so that the settlement that the formula has delivered is not enough to cover their costs. Some police forces, such as mine in Humberside and South Yorkshire—of particular interest to the Home Secretary—are badly hit by the formula and have been for some years. In my case, it has meant doubling the council tax precept to cover the costs. Earlier the right hon. Gentleman mentioned changes to the formula. Can he give us any guidance and hope that the formula will be changed in such a way as to help the likes of the Humberside and South Yorkshire forces in future? They are good police forces doing a good job, but they are dying the death of a thousand cuts.
Mr. Denham: I do not accept that either of those forces is dying the death of a thousand cuts. The increases in resources during the past two years were unheard of under the right hon. Gentleman's party, so let us not have loose talk of that sort because it is damaging.
Let us talk about the formula. All that I want to do—extremely tentatively—is to set out the principles. A part of the pension costs arises from predictable costs that occur when people retire from the police service in the usual way. The police service as a whole and individual police forces have no control over that, but the costs can vary unpredictably if, 30 years previously, there was a cohort with an especially substantial intake. When that group leaves the service there can be a disproportionate impact on pension costs and the budget for that year, and that fact will not be reflected 100 per cent. in the damping mechanisms that are currently in the system. My aim—although I am not sure whether I can achieve it—is to have a system that better protects forces from those costs.
Another cost built into pension schemes reflects to a large extent the success or otherwise of police services in effectively managing health and medical retirement issues. We all acknowledge that some forces have dealt with those much more effectively than others. I am not convinced that those costs are central and that we should pick them up, or that it would serve the good management of the police service to say that whatever the rate of medical retirement the cost to the pension scheme would be picked up centrally. The honest answer is that we shall have to get that right, so that we send the correct signals through the system. We must try to protect police authorities against costs over which they cannot possibly have control but which can affect their budget. However, we do not want to send a signal that poor management will be subsidised by the central police settlement. That will be my approach.
I have already referred to our actions in finding additional resources from outside the planned settlement to ensure that each police authority receives a grant increase during 2001–02 on a like-for-like basis of at least 2.3 per cent. The mechanism is part of a system of floors and ceilings that have applied to the local government grant settlement. Although the mechanism has generally been welcomed, some authorities would have preferred a higher floor, while others were concerned that those above the floor were paying for those below it. We have damped that effect with the additional resources found by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The introduction of the floors and ceilings system has been useful this year.
302
I want to make a couple of points about the special grant. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) pointed out, I have received requests for special grant to support several police authorities who suffered during the disturbances last summer. I am pleased to tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has agreed to meet more than half the extra policing costs that were incurred and to give grant as follows: £2.22 million to West Yorkshire; £1.44 million to Greater Manchester; £0.82 million to Lancashire; and £0.56 million to Staffordshire.
Mr. Paul Truswell: The announcement that my right hon. Friend has made about West Yorkshire will be most welcome and will go some way towards mitigating the £3.4 million that the service spent on policing the Bradford disturbances. Will he bear in mind, however, that the authority, like many others, also faces claims for not damage? In the case of West Yorkshire, the amount is £7.5 million. Will he monitor the situation with a view to being equally generous when the final picture and its impact on the service and on police funding becomes clearer?
Mr. Denham: The amount that I announced is an improvement on the normal special grant criteria. Those criteria would have allowed for only a small payment for policing costs—only about £300,000 for West Yorkshire. I hope that the move to meet almost 64 per cent. of the extra policing costs will be seen as significant.
I can say nothing specific this afternoon about possible claims under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. We shall have to wait and see what the position is. We are aware that the Lancashire police authority, for example, is determined to resist claims under the Act. I cannot speak for the authority, but it sees no reason why taxpayers' money should be spent on refunding insurance companies. I believe that that is some way in the distance, but I hope that the additional resources will be welcomed by the forces that receive them.
We have also considered the position of Greater Manchester police, which, as I have just announced, will receive £1.44 million to help to meet the costs of the disturbances. The Secretary of State and I have agreed that a grant of £3 million will be paid to Greater Manchester police as a contribution to the policing costs of the Commonwealth games in a few months' time. Until two or three months ago, Greater Manchester police was telling us that the costs would be £4.8 million, so £3 million is a fairly substantial amount. There was a £3 million hike in that cost, of which we were informed in November.
There cannot be a blank cheque for underwriting whatever costs Greater Manchester police says that it will incur. My officials are still in discussions with the police authority to ascertain whether further costs are justified, but comments of the sort that I heard the chairman of the police authority make today, suggesting that people would be put at risk, show a great deal less confidence in Greater Manchester police than I have.
Mr. Brady: The Minister has said that the estimate of the cost of policing has increased since the original estimate was given, but will he give an undertaking that if he is persuaded that the new estimate is accurate and

303
the costs will be £7.5 million, the whole cost will be funded by the Home Office, not dumped on the council tax payers of Greater Manchester?
Mr. Denham: I have said what I have said. Until November we were told that the costs would be £4.8 million, and then someone said that they would be another £3 million. We are in discussions about the nature of those costs and we shall have to see what happens. Clearly, that would be additional substantial Government funding, in addition to the funding that has already been made available to the Commonwealth games. Of course we all want the games to be a success and a safe success, but equally there cannot be a blank cheque.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: My right hon. Friend has been generous in recognising the difficulties faced by many forces, but will he also recognise that when particular areas decide to bid for large events such as the Commonwealth games, it is done on the basis that local people, local business interests and others believe that there will be a financial gain as a result of attracting these events? Should not they also contribute something towards the policing costs?
Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right in the sense that we all hope that Manchester, and the north-west region, will benefit substantially from a successful Commonwealth games. I am quite prepared—I believe that this is the Government's attitude—to approach the issue in partnership, which is why there has been significant Government funding and why I was pleased to make the announcement that I made this afternoon. But I am aware of the reality that may have prompted my hon. Friend's question—that money that I find for the Commonwealth games in Manchester is money that cannot be made available to the police service in any of the areas represented by any of the other hon. Members in the Chamber. We must get the right balance between the needs that arise from specific events and the needs that exist in every area of the country, and I hope that we are doing so. That is why we do not like blank cheques, and why we consider issues very seriously and carefully, on the merits of each case.
For the coming year, we continue to set store by stability in the grant system, to help police authorities to plan ahead. As with this year, we have not proposed any changes to the method of police grant distribution for 2002–03. There will be no substantive changes to the operation of the police funding formula for next year, although of course data have been updated as usual. For 2002–03, the average increase in grant-supported expenditure for police authorities will be 2.9 per cent.
The formula has many strengths. It is generally acceptable to much of the policing community; it also has well recognised limitations. It is largely based on the way in which police forces allocated officers to services in the early 1990s, so we are working to update the formula in line with the policing needs of the next five years. We have a working group with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the National Assembly for Wales, the Local Government Association, the Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan police. That group is considering a range of options to update the funding formula,
304
particularly with regard to the police activity data that underlies it. The group is also considering how best to deal with the additional costs that may arise from policing especially sparsely or densely populated areas—an issue raised earlier in the debate.
During the consultation on the grant this year a variety of issues have been raised about the formula. Those who raise such issues always assume any change will be to their benefit, even though no change will ever produce only winners. However, my right hon. Friend and I have concluded that this is the time to undertake a serious and wide-ranging review of the formula. As part of that review, we shall want to examine all the issues raised in the consultation and seek to ensure that the grant formula properly supports the police service of England and Wales on its key role of tackling criminality, reducing crime and tackling the fear of crime.
Where possible, I should like changes to the funding formula to be introduced, after consultation, in time for the provisional police funding settlement for 2003–04, but the ability to do that will depend on making good progress in the months ahead.
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend has said about the annual settlement. I have a briefing from the Cleveland police authority in which I am told:
"The overall effect of the police settlement is that local taxation will have to increase significantly above general inflation to provide essential additional funding for the police service."
Is my right hon. Friend aware of that? The chairman of the police authority has said that the police precept will have to increase by at least 50p a week—about £26 on a band D council tax bill. That is a serious consequence of the settlement.
Mr. Denham: I shall write to my hon. Friend about the position in his authority, but I have set out pretty clearly that this is a good settlement, taking into account not just the grant settlement, but the additional funding, through the crime fighting fund, to recruit additional police officers—plus the 30 per cent. increase on average in capital funding, together with the additional resources from which many forces benefit. Of course, it is for police authorities to set their precepts, and we expect them to do so in a reasonable and prudent manner, but those who are trying to represent the settlement as a particularly poor one are really not reflecting the contribution of the different sources of funds that I have set out this afternoon.
Mr. Roger Williams: I was pleased to hear that the Minister has consulted the National Assembly for Wales on the future of the formula. The settlement has had a mixed reception in Wales, but there is a growing feeling that police functions and police funding should be devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. Has his Department had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Wales or the First Minister, with a view to making progress?
Mr. Denham: I think that I can be absolutely confident in saying that no such discussions have taken place in the six or seven months that I have been in this job, and I am not aware that any took place previously, but we enjoy

305
in the devolution settlement an extremely good working relationship with National Assembly for Wales at official and political level. The Assembly shares absolutely our commitment to tackling criminality, reducing crime and tackling the fear of crime. I have made a number of visits to Wales, as I have to the regions of England. We have a good, effective working relationship, and I hope that we can build on it in the years to come. We are determined to reduce crime and to lessen the fear of crime. The investment that I have announced will help the police to play their key part in tackling crime and disorder.
Paddy Tipping: My right hon. Friend talks of reducing crime, and I am sure that he is conscious of the fact that police numbers are rising and crime is falling in Nottinghamshire, but on any statistical comparison with like authorities, he will find that the Nottinghamshire police appear to be under-resourced. Will he give a commitment that, in the new formula in 2003–04, he will look very carefully at the position in Nottinghamshire? I accept what he says: all cannot be winners; there will be losers, too.
Mr. Denham: I have visited Nottinghamshire, and I am aware that the view in the city of Nottingham in particular is that the Nottinghamshire force faces the typical crime patterns of a major city under what is seen as a shire county funding formula. I cannot tell my hon. Friend what the outcome of the formula review will be, but I hope—this may be fatal optimism—that we will be able to approach the matter in such a way that he and other Nottinghamshire Members will be able to see that their concerns have been considered and addressed. That is an ambitious aim for any review—it will not leave everybody satisfied—but I hope that I can at least say that I listened to people when I made such visits. After many years of such issues not being considered, we are now prepared to consider them afresh.
I have taken considerably longer than I had hoped, but I hope that I have given way to all hon. Members who wished to intervene and that I have been able to respond to many of their points.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind all hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a time limit of 12 minutes on all Back Benchers' speeches. Given the fact that a number of hon. Members have risen, they may wish to make their contributions even shorter.
4.21 pm
Mr. James Paice: I shall do my best to enable as many hon. Members as possible, from all parties, to contribute to the debate.
I recognise the courteous way in which the Minister introduced the debate. He has given way, as has been a tradition in this debate over many years, to every hon. Member who wished to put the case for their police force. He and I are the only two hon. Members who have been prevented from doing that, but I assure him that I shall do my best to do so when I come to the appropriate moment in my speech.
306
I welcome the Minister's announcement, towards the end of his remarks, about extra resources for those forces who had to deal with riots, unrest and disturbances in some parts of the country last year. It is right that such extraordinary costs should be recognised, as should the extra costs—I will not enter into the dispute about how much they will be—that Manchester will incur because of the Commonwealth games. I would refer to Cambridgeshire inasmuch as, last year, the then Home Secretary recognised the extra costs faced by the police force in policing the Huntingdon Life Sciences protests, which are a permanent thorn in the side of Cambridgeshire constabulary. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on that issue again.
The debate takes place against a dismal background of acute demoralisation in the police force. Before I consider the settlement, it is right to examine that background. Since the Home Secretary took on his new role just eight months ago, he has used every opportunity to criticise and undermine the police force. He has criticised their sickness rates, wastage rates and clear-up rates, and has generally presented the police force as a bunch of lazy, ill layabouts.
Even before that, however, the police were faced with ever-increasing bureaucracy and paperwork. As the Minister rightly said, that was manifested in the diary of a police officer, which showed how little time the police spend doing what most people regard as the most important part of policing—being out there visibly carrying out their duties.
As I said in my intervention, I welcome the fact that the Minister believes that the computerised custody system will come on stream in the course of next year. I am sorry that he was not able to provide a more definitive date as to when it will be extended to the whole country, as it will not be fully beneficial until then. However, the study entitled "Diary of a Police Officer" showed that it takes about three and a half hours on average to process each arrest. Therefore, any savings that can be made through the use of a computerised system would release a considerable amount of officer time.
Mr. Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is precisely the sort of role with which civilians could help, especially retired police officers who know how to process arrests? That would be a good use of their time and would help the police overall.
Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point, but he misses the crucial issue, which is the vast amount of paperwork that needs to be done before we address the problem of who does it. I welcome the fact that the Police Negotiating Board has tentatively found a way to encourage police officers who have done their 30 years to stay on in the force and use their experience to deal with custody cases or some other policing activity. That is a considerable step forward, but other things have caused the police to wonder why they bother.
The courts continue to release on bail people who the police know full well will reoffend. Chief police officers have expressed their concern to me about that. The Government introduced the early release scheme, which allowed 200 people who had attacked police officers out of prison early. In addition, the Home Secretary's proposals to make a dramatic change to pay and terms of

307
employment were pushed through the Police Negotiating Board just before Christmas, under the heads of agreement. The rank and file are due to vote next week. The expectation in all levels of the police force is that it will be a no vote and that the concessions on overtime which the Home Secretary made on Monday will be insufficient to alter the result. As one police officer said to me yesterday, they have been knocked about. They feel bruised and battered and just when they needed encouragement, they are kicked again. Anyone with experience of managing people knows that it is necessary to bolster the morale of staff and the work force before setting about asking them to face change.
Let me be clear on this: we wholly support the need for change and increased flexibility in the police force. That is necessary, but the Government's bully-boy tactics are not conducive to making the police force adapt and face up to that change constructively, which is what we need if we are to achieve the necessary results.
The Minister referred to figures. Only two years ago, the Prime Minister said:
"every single promise that we made—on getting waiting lists down, getting class sizes down and increasing police numbers—will be met by the next general election, as we said they would be."—[Official Report, 16 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 948.]
We know that that did not happen and the promise was broken. It appears that the Government have at last got police numbers back to the level that they inherited, but instead of showing remorse or apologising for four wasted years, the Minister wants credit for getting us back to square one.
Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Paice: In a moment.
The Minister used the phrase "We have turned the tide." The question has to be asked: who set the tide in that direction in the first place? It was the present Government.
Mr. Denham: The direction of the tide was set by the previous Government who began cutting police numbers in 1993 and they continued to fall steadily. Not only did crime double, but the country was left in such a bad economic state that we had to sort out the public finances, which were in such a mess in 1997, and introduce economic stability to provide the platform for the increase in police numbers. The hon. Gentleman's Government set the tide in that direction when they allowed crime to double.
Mr. Paice: The Minister is absolutely wrong. According to the Government's figures—it is staggering how often they belie what the Government say—between March 1996 and March 1997, the last year of the Conservative Government, the number of police officers rose by 250 in a single year. I do not know where he gets the idea that we set the tide in that direction because the numbers rose to 127,158. I remind the House that by 31 March 2000 the number of police officers had dropped from 127,158 to 124,170—a drop of almost 3,000 in the first three years of a Labour Government.
Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the drop in police numbers when the
308
Labour Government came to power. Is not the problem the fact that the Government followed Tory spending plans?
Mr. Paice: That is a typical Liberal intervention. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Government say that they have followed Conservative plans when it suits them to do so, as an excuse for a lack of effective and efficient economic management. However, when they want to boast about extra expenditure, of course that has nothing to do with the previous Government's spending plans; they claim the credit for themselves.
Fiona Mactaggart: We have got into a debate, since I sought to intervene, about where this all started. In Slough, it started with the abolition of the police housing allowance by the Conservative Government, which has meant that police officers in Slough, who are only four miles away from the boundary of the Met area, are paid £6,000 less than Met officers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in power, his party was wrong to abolish the police housing allowance?
Mr. Paice: No, I certainly do not agree that we were wrong to abolish it per se—[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Lady specifically referred to Slough. I do not pretend to have a detailed working knowledge of the police force in Slough; that is her responsibility, and I do not have that knowledge. If it proves that the policy was not right for circumstances in Slough, she may have a point; I cannot answer that. However, overall, it was not wrong to abolish the allowance in the wider context of London and the Metropolitan police. The £6,000 pay lead to which the Minister referred was a more sensible way of dealing with the problem, coupled with the introduction of the transport allowance. My own county, however, is suffering from the introduction of that allowance; in counties from which it is possible to commute to London, we now find that many police officers are using the free travel to join the Met. It is swings and roundabouts; some police forces may have lost out a little, but overall there has been a significant gain for policing in this country.
The final background issue which I wish to mention is crime. In the five years before Labour came to power, crime fell year on year by a total of 17 per cent, which was the first time in decades that the rise had begun to be reversed. Crime then started to rise; the Home Office, as is traditional in the circumstances, tried to change the figures so that it was difficult to make comparisons. However, after those changes, recorded crime began to rise again, by 3.8 per cent in the following year, only thankfully to fall back by 2.5 per cent. the year after.
Mr. McCabe: Does the hon. Gentleman reject the British crime survey finding that overall crime has fallen by 22 per cent. since Labour came to power in 1997?
Mr. Paice: I find it hard to accept that. The fact is—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that we are discussing the size and distribution of the police grant as contained in the report.
Mr. Paice: I appreciate that very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, may I respond briefly to the

309
intervention? The simple fact is that much crime, particularly violent crime, has risen dramatically in the past few years. In some London boroughs, robbery has increased by more than 100 per cent. in the past 12 months. For the Minister to chide us that crime doubled over 18 years sits ill with the fact that under Labour, violent crime and robbery in some London boroughs has doubled in 12 months.
Having set the background to the debate, I shall look directly at funding and the police grant. The Minister paraded a great many figures to demonstrate huge generosity. He spoke about 6.1 per cent. and 5 per cent., and at one stage he got to a 16 per cent. planned increase. For the vast majority of police authorities, however, the reality is much less. For 19 authorities, it is the floor figure of 2.3 per cent. The introduction of floors and ceilings is a commendable way of ironing out some of the unfairnesses that arise from the formula, but it seems odd to choose figures which mean that almost half—19 of the police authorities—are at the floor level.
The total standard spending increase of 2.8 per cent. means an increase of £209 million, but according to the Association of Police Authorities, authorities will have to increase their revenue expenditure by £371 million just to stand still. That is because of inflation, last year's pay settlement of 3.5 per cent., and pensions rising by a projected 8 per cent. this year.
We see another turn of the screw on the council tax payer. Already under the Government there has been a marked shift towards funding the police through the council tax payer. That is nowhere more marked than in the Metropolitan police area, where there has been a 141 per cent. increase in the council tax precept per head. In Humberside, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said, it has doubled. In Staffordshire, too, it has doubled. In my county, Cambridgeshire, it has gone up by 64 per cent. In the county of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), it has gone up by some 60 per cent. The county with the lowest increase is Durham, where the figure is just 23 per cent. I can only conjecture as to why that might be.
We also know that for the coming year, as a result of the grant settlement announced by the Minister this afternoon, police authorities are considering the need for further huge increases. In the case of Cambridgeshire, despite what the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) said earlier—she was wrong—the county police authority is consulting on a 20 per cent. increase, just to have a stand-still budget, with no extra for national schemes or local pressures. Despite what the Minister said, Cambridgeshire remains the second lowest in terms of officers per head of population and in terms of average spending per head.
In Cumbria, the chief constable said that the settlement means that there will be some hard decisions ahead. In discussions with other authorities this morning and earlier this week, we found that Hampshire, the Minister's own authority, requires 5.2 per cent. just to stand still, but is expecting an increase of 14.5 per cent. In Lancashire, the projected figure is 8.7 per cent., in Cheshire, 14 per cent., and in Bedfordshire, 12 per cent. A survey conducted by the Police Authorities Treasurers Society showed that a significant number of forces were considering an increase
310
in the precept of 20 to 30 per cent., and others were trying to deal with the shortfall by cutting back on certain elements.
Mr. Peter Luff: In the case of the West Mercia police authority, a further massive real-terms increase of 19.9 per cent. in council tax is predicted. That comes on top of the 7.9 per cent. increase that the county council must levy to meet the Government's spending ambitions—a huge increase for those who can least afford to pay it.
Mr. Paice: Were all counties represented in the Chamber and were I to give way, I am sure that many other hon. Members would tell similar stories to that of my hon. Friend. Every county that we have telephoned has given similar stories. We just chose a few at random.
Will the Minister tell the House what rise he realistically expects in the average council tax precept by police authorities, just for a stand-still budget? It is important to know that because, as the chief constable of Cumbria said with reference to the crime fighting fund,
"the rules which govern the appointment of these officers require that they are in addition to normal recruitment—which in the light of the overall position cannot be guaranteed."
As the Minister reminded us, the Government are committed to having 130,000 officers by the end of the approaching financial year, yet some authorities clearly doubt whether they can afford to maintain the normal recruitment pattern. That would mean losing access to the crime fighting fund. The Minister makes great play of the target for a record number of officers, and we shall be pleased if he achieves it. However, the cup may be dashed from his lips because authorities cannot afford the extra officers without further substantial increases in council tax. In the first four years, council tax payers have had to pay considerably more for, in the main, the same number of police officers.
The Minister mentioned pensions in his concluding remarks. I appreciate the difficulty of wrestling with that issue, but I hope that he realises the urgency of reaching a conclusion on the problem. It is a running sore for police authorities and a huge and increasing drain on their resources.
The Minister referred to the distribution formula, and I was interested to hear that he and the Home Secretary believe that the time is right to undertake "a serious and wide-ranging review of the formula". That would be good news if the Government had not embarked on a similar review three years ago in 1999. We have received no results from it. Year after year, the Minister and his predecessors have promised to change the distribution formula; we continue to await results.
Top-sliced funding is also important. This year, the Government have increased the amount of money that they top slice from the police budget by some 51 per cent. for special initiatives. I admit that each initiative is a worthy item of expenditure; £120 million extra has been taken for them, another £203 million for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and £167 million for centrally provided services. The figures for last year are not directly comparable because they are shrouded in Home Office mystique, but there appeared to be an increase of 143 per cent. in the amount of money that was top sliced and retained by the centre. That is a worrying trend.

311
The Home Secretary reportedly said that he wanted an initiative a day, but a clear picture is emerging: he does not trust chief constables or police authorities with the initiatives. The trend towards central control of funds, coupled with the swingeing extra powers that he proposes to take in the Police Reform Bill, are the signs of someone who trusts nobody. His stance appears to be, "We can have as many initiatives as we like as long as they are all mine." That is the opposite of local control, to which the Government pay lip service.
It is worth recalling the words of the White Paper, which was published before Christmas. On page 137, it states:
"The importance of police authorities in the governance of the police service is recognised and their role in providing local oversight of police forces is key … This new role creates a much higher set of expectations of police authorities".
Yet their power to act is increasingly curtailed.
We can divine two clear messages from the settlement and those that preceded it. First, there is a huge shift in the cost of policing, which is borne increasingly by council tax payers, presumably in the hope that they will not notice, that they will blame the police authority or, even better, the local authority that levies the tax. Secondly, we can forget about local control or initiatives. Policing will be exactly what the Home Secretary determines. His instincts about the need to improve policing are right, but his methods are wrong.
Increasingly centralised control of our police by funding or authority may seem attractive to a Home Secretary who wants change fast, but it is dangerous to put so much power in the hands of one person, and he should think again.
4.44 pm
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I welcome the announcement, particularly from the point of view of the west midlands. I spoke earlier today to some of the officers, including the chief constable, of West Midlands police. They were certainly happy with their settlement, which is the average 2.8 per cent. That is worth £368 million in revenue for the west midlands, and I welcome that. It is clear that the police need more officers, more resources and more support. It strikes me, however, that they are not immune to reform. Like any other public service, they must be prepared to respond to changing needs and to changing public demands.
Despite the tale of woe and denial from the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), it is a fact that the latest British crime survey records that overall crime figures have fallen by 22 per cent. since Labour came to power in 1997. That is a mark of the strength of the Government's policing strategies and funding strategies, and we should celebrate that. In particular, we should celebrate the initiatives that have reduced house burglary and vehicle crime.
We should also be prepared, however, to criticise when we come across the statistics that suggest that 24 per cent. of all recorded crime goes undetected, and only 9 per cent. ends in a conviction. That suggests that we should try to do more. A key to that is obviously to have more officers, and the additional funding that has been announced, plus the crime fighting fund, will achieve that aim. In the west
312
midlands, the number of officers rose from 7,113 in March 1997 to 7,432 by September last year, so there can be no doubt that there has been an increase.
That increase could well have been greater if we were not suffering from problems of transfers and retention in the west midlands. The current proposals on police pay will give the average officer about an extra £1,000 a year, which is welcome in terms of helping with retention. If regional allowances are having a positive impact in some parts of the home counties, it should be worth considering whether a similar arrangement could be made for a big force such as the West Midlands police, which is suffering from a seepage of trained officers to surrounding forces.
I also welcome the proposals to reduce red tape. I was astounded by a case that I encountered recently in Birmingham, in which the chief constable delegated powers for the making of an antisocial behaviour order to the superintendent of the operational command unit. He omitted, however, to delegate the powers to consult with the relevant associated agencies, and the magistrates court refused to make the order, even though it was based on a well-founded application. That is the ultimate absurdity in red tape, and I hope that efforts will be made to sweep that kind of nonsense away at the earliest opportunity.
I want to comment on two topical issues confronting the police, which relate to how we spend resources. First, I want to explore the possibility of making greater use of people such as community support officers, and the proposals for the accreditation of other agencies. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and in some areas such provisions could complement police work. It must, however, be made clear that community support officers will play a supporting role that will not be regarded as second-hand, or cheaper, policing, and that their use will not be used to disguise police numbers.
Many hon. Members will have seen the letter in The Times today from the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan police. He made the telling point that a community support officer may deal with certain activities but does not have the capacity to deal with more serious incidents. If one of our—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already reminded hon. Members that we are discussing the police grant report.
Mr. McCabe: I am extremely grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point that I was trying to make is that we must use the funding appropriately, and that we do not want to create two-tier policing. Although it is important to get the maximum benefit from the resources available to us, if a uniformed element appears as a quasi police force without appropriate powers, we risk undermining public confidence rather than reinforcing it.
Will the Minister assure us that any moves towards accreditation or community support officers will be fully discussed and negotiated, and that they will not be imposed on police forces throughout the country?
I should like to touch on a point raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire about the tendency to centralise. He was talking specifically about the top-slicing of certain resources for central elements. This Government have established a new approach to policing under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, based on pooling resources and energies within local

313
partnerships with a view to tackling crime together. It would be a mistake to go about top-slicing budgets and creating too many centralised targets and initiatives that distract from the work in a local area.
Some of the Home Office targets—those on house burglaries and vehicle crime spring to mind—have been immensely successful. However, it would be a dreadful mistake if we were to attempt to micromanage the police from Queen Anne's Gate. It would fly in the face of the recommendations in the Audit Commission report, which argued strongly for devolving resources—operational power and, more importantly, budgets and finance—to basic command units.
Will the Minister ensure that we do not undermine the work that has been done in establishing basic command units and local partnerships, because they are the key to tackling the crimes that most members of the public are afraid of. They are also the key to tackling antisocial behaviour, and they are unlikely to be aided by central targets or central management. They will certainly not be aided by centralising budgets. I hope that the Minister will pay due attention to that issue.
I am conscious that several other Members want to speak in this debate and I do not want to take up more of the House's time. Let me stress, however, that although there are concerns about the level of funding in the west midlands, I have yet to encounter a police officer who has told me that the police are unhappy with the settlement announced today. In a hard-hitting article in the force's own newspaper, the chairman of the west midlands branch of the Police Federation was critical of certain Government proposals but concluded that the other two parties had absolutely no ideas on crime or policing. When we are paid that sort of compliment, we must assume that we are on the right track.
4.54 pm
Norman Baker: This is a dry topic on the amount of grant and other allocations given to police authorities, but the impact of that grant is important in terms of the number of police officers in our areas and on our streets. That is how the public will measure the success of the Government's proposals this afternoon and subsequently.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) talked about police numbers and, from my understanding, the figures that he gave are correct. It is a great pity that we have only just got back to the position in 1997, when the Government were elected on a pledge to increase police numbers. The reason is clear. My view, which is shared by the chairman of the Labour party, is that the Government were wrong to stick to the Conservative Government's spending plans for the first two years of the last Parliament. If they had not done so, we would be further forward now.
I welcome the Minister's statement about extra costs for Greater Manchester police for their policing of the riots and for the Commonwealth games. I hope that he will be equally clear about money for the Metropolitan police to cover the costs that they are incurring to deal with the threat of terrorism, ahead of the precept which will be announced without much further delay.
The headline figure that the Government have been keen to trumpet in the paper that they have published is 6.1 per cent. That follows the headline figure of 10.1 per
314
cent. last year, so the Government will be keen to say how much more is going into local policing. It is worth noting that the figure has fallen, and according to the comprehensive spending review will fall again next year to only 3.1 per cent., which is close to the inflation rate.
Mrs. Brooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that residents of Dorset, who currently pay the third highest precept, will not be terribly impressed with that headline figure, given that they are not seeing more police on the streets, which is what they want, despite paying those high levels and facing large increases in the precept?
Norman Baker: That is right. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire touched on the issue of the precept, as will I. The Government are presenting us with a pool in which the water looks crystal clear but when one sticks a piece of wood in it and stirs it around all sorts of muck comes up from the bottom, and it is less clear when the detritus has risen to the surface. There are a number of hidden problems with the 6.1 per cent. increase.
By the Government's own admission, the amount being paid directly to local police authorities averages only 2.8 per cent. That allows for an anticipated precept from the police standard spending assessment, which will come through. Therefore, of the 6.1 per cent. increase, more than half—3.3 per cent.—will be allocated for central funding proposals. Even on the Government's figures, only five of the 38 police authorities will get 3 per cent. or more. That is hardly a huge increase. Some increases are as low as 2.3 per cent., which is the Government's baseline inflation figure.
The pay award in 2001–02 was 3.5 per cent. Therefore, the base figure of 2.3 per cent. fails even to keep up with the pay award. The pay award for next year is anticipated to be along the same lines. Authorities such as North Yorkshire anticipate a shortfall of £1.1 million this year as a consequence of the Government's formula. Last year, it received £2.014 million in the rural funding element, which provided 60 new officers. That is very good: we are all in favour of 60 new officers in rural areas. As a rural Member, I know that they are badly needed.
This year's rural funding formula produces £2.018 million, which is an increase of only £4,000, but the authority has to pay the increase in the salaries of the 60 officers whom it took on last year in good faith. Therefore, the authority will immediately face budget problems. It estimates a shortfall that will have to be met by savings of 5 per cent. on non-operational budgets and big precept rises, which is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) made. The Association of Police Authorities has said that 2.8 per cent. is insufficient, and that 5 per cent. is needed just to stand still.
I draw the Minister's attention to a recent press release from Cleveland police, which stated:
"A potential cash crisis is putting police services in Cleveland under threat.
Despite the Government's much trumpeted 6.1 per cent. increase in funding nationwide the reality is … earmarked by the Home Office for the Cleveland Force is 2.85 per cent.—which fails to even cover pay award rises.

315
As a result the Force is facing a £6 million deficit—the equivalent to losing 240 police officers—and a host of plans to improve services for local people and make life more difficult for criminal may go on ice."
The picture, then, may not be quite as rosy as the Minister would have us believe.
Let us consider the direct grant—never mind the standard spending assessment and the capital figure. According to the House of Commons Library, the direct grant for every police authority in England is now less than it was last year, if we allow for an increase in inflation. In other words, every police authority will have experienced a real-terms decrease in the grant provided by the Government—which is, after all, what we are discussing. Last year, every authority experienced a real-terms increase, except Surrey, which is a special case because of the London arrangements.
That has a number of implications. For one thing, there will be a greater reliance on the precept, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire pointed out. That means big increases in Sussex and in other police authorities up and down the country, which in turn means that people will pay more council tax without necessarily seeing more police officers as a consequence.
Dr. Kumar: The hon. Gentleman is criticising the Government for what I consider to be an excellent settlement. What allocation would he make? I have not heard him mention a figure.
Norman Baker: I am surprised by what the hon. Gentleman says, because I took his earlier intervention to be critical of the settlement. In any case, we are here to discuss the Government's settlement: it is they who are presenting the proposals. We made it clear at the last election that we would increase police resources significantly, and that remains our position.
What we would also do is ensure that police money was allocated in a way that was supported by police authorities and, as far as possible, by the police themselves. Can the Minister say whether chief constables are happy with the settlement, and, perhaps more importantly, with the division of it? It is not just a case of budget uncertainty; there is more and more money to bid for. There are more and more central funds, which makes it difficult for police authorities to set precepts. They are not sure of the parameters, or of how much will be provided. It is the same problem that local authorities have had for years. It is getting worse for them, and now it will get worse for police authorities.
Another problem is creeping centralisation. The Government's own figures, also provided by the Library, suggest that while the increase for police authorities directly will be 2.8 per cent., the increase for centrally provided services will be 83.1 per cent. The increase for specific initiatives will be 51.4 per cent., and the increase in central capital funds will be 33.6 per cent. The increase for the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which is now centrally controlled, will be 23.8 per cent. We are seeing huge percentage increases in all the pockets of money that are centrally controlled—huge increases in areas in which Ministers themselves give discretion. Police authorities, however, which are locally accountable, will receive an overall rise of 2.8 per cent. I do not believe that chief constables will support that.
Mr. Denham: I assume that the hon. Gentleman would include in his definition of centralising projects the
316
development of a national DNA database, or the development of the Airwave communications system. Do the Liberal Democrats believe that there should be no national DNA database? Do they think that the money should simply be devolved to police authorities so that they can decide whether they want to make better use of DNA in detection?
An element of reality in the hon. Gentleman's comments would be helpful. If he does think that the examples I have given should be central priorities, he is not making a great deal of sense.
Norman Baker: A lot of money that is spent centrally could be devolved. It is not clear why the crime fighting fund, for instance, has not been devolved. That is a huge amount of money. Nor is it clear why the rural policing fund is to be held centrally. These are the big figures; the DNA database, in terms of—
Mr. Denham: I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands. The rural policing fund constitutes a recognition by central Government that the existing police formula did not adequately represent the needs of sparsely populated areas. Extra money could be provided for such areas only if central Government created a fund allocated to police authorities, but what the money is spent on is determined by the police authorities.
Norman Baker: That money is still outside the normal police authority funding settlement. A special fund has been set up that does not need to be administered centrally. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) said when he was in the Chamber, that fund could be wrapped up in the formula that is applied directly to local police authorities. It is not at the moment.
Mr. Luff: It is not my style to help the hon. Gentleman but in this case I would like to. The formal response from West Mercia police authority to the Home Office consultation states:
"The additional resources allocated via a number of specific ringfenced initiatives are welcome but the Police Authority views the growth of ringfenced initiatives per se as regrettable. It leads to uncertainties in medium term financial plans, disrupted spending patterns and undermines the local democratic process."
Norman Baker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening. He makes the case very well. The Minister will have to address that point. Ring-fencing of funds centrally is not popular as a long-term strategy, but there is an increasing tendency towards that. [Interruption.] The Minister may laugh but people in my police authority—police officers in Sussex, local councillors and others—do not like the creeping centralisation that the Government have embarked on. It is dangerous.
As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, there are proposals from the Home Secretary to take for himself sweeping powers to sack chief constables. In Sussex, we have been at the rough end of that already—one local chief constable has already been sacked via a press release by the Home Secretary. It seems that he wants to go further.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now confine his remarks to the grant.
Norman Baker: I am happy to do so. I was making the point—I am sorry if I did not make myself entirely

317
clear—that the way the grant is allocated determines the level of local accountability within the police service. Centralisation of grant money and funds by the Home Office gives it extra leverage over the independence of local police authorities and forces, which is mirrored by the proposal to allow the Home Secretary to sack chief constables.
Mr. John Burnett: Centralisation is an arbitrary process. Does my hon. Friend agree that it does not give certainty in relation to future planning, especially for police forces in rural areas where the sparsity factor is not properly included in the calculations?
Norman Baker: I agree. The history of such centralisation has not been a happy one in local government. We need to start moving away from it rather than increasing the tendency towards it.
As for the effect that the grant will have on the number of police officers, the Government are moving in the right direction and I pay tribute to their efforts in the past couple of years to increase the number of police officers. I accept that they are succeeding in increasing the recruitment of officers, but they are not ensuring that they are retained, which is a different matter. I am sure that the Minister will try to address that.
The Minister will know, for example, that in the past year resignations in the Metropolitan police increased by 29 per cent. over the previous year. The number of officers who transferred to other forces increased by 63 per cent. Resignations in the west midlands force increased by 32 per cent. over the previous year. The figure for Greater Manchester is 29 per cent. The Government are doing good work on recruitment but they need to find a way to ensure that officers are retained because it is obvious that that is not happening. If that pattern of loss were to continue at length, we would have a preponderance of new officers without sufficient training, because it is the experienced officers who are leaving. That is bad for the balance within the police force.
What assumptions have been made in the budget proposals set out today about community support officers. How many does the Minister assume will be in place in 12 months? He must have made that calculation in order to work out the grant. When he made that assumption, he will have had an assumption about what those persons will do—clearly, the functions that they are given will determine how many are required. If they are to carry out non-controversial functions, such as dealing with untaxed vehicles, which I think all hon. Members would support, that represents a different order of things. Among the more controversial suggestions from the Government, however, are those relating to powers of detention and so on.
I welcome the overall 6.1 per cent. increase, but I am concerned at the way in which it is being divided. It is unfortunate that there is more centralisation and ring fencing, and I hope that the Government will try to reverse that trend in years to come.
5.10 pm
Mr. Martin Salter: I welcome the opportunity to address the thorny issue of police funding, and I also welcome the Minister's announcement of an increase in resources of 6.1 per cent., coupled with the important agenda of reform. Listening to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), I was a little confused as to whether the Conservative party embraces the reform agenda or is merely cherry-picking bits of that difficult procedure for its own party political advantage.
Time is short, so I shall address three specific areas: problems relating to retention and recruitment, particularly in the south-east; policing and the consequences for police resourcing in Reading; and the fundamental fault line that runs through the heart of the police funding formula. Governments of all persuasions have recognised the need to review that formula, and such a review cannot come quickly enough.
In talking about policing or any other public service, one should set out one's credentials. As a child of the 1960s, I did not always enjoy an enthusiastic relationship with the police. In fact, I first encountered my current area commander when he was a special patrol group officer on the Grunwick picket line. I am not sure whether he is personally responsible for a rather large scar on my right shin, but we have moved on and we now laugh about that encounter over a beer. I am honoured and privileged to be about to graduate from the police service parliamentary scheme, which I commend to other hon. Members. It gives fascinating and invaluable insight into the work of our police officers.
Ministers are well aware of the huge problems, to which reference has already been made, faced by all public service providers in high-cost housing areas in the south-east. However, under the crime fighting fund, which I welcomed with open arms, the Thames Valley police force received funding for only 200 additional officers for the period 1999–2001. Despite record recruitment levels in the force and nationally, and despite the additional £2,000 regional cost of living allowance for which many of us lobbied, in real terms the Thames Valley force has not one extra police officer. In fact, we are losing officers to other forces as fast as we can recruit them.
What does the absurd notion of splitting operational independence from budgetary independence mean? It means that, in effect, our council tax payers—including those represented by Opposition Members, and by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), with whom I have worked closely on this issue—are funding a recruitment agency for other, better policed forces. I hope that the Minister and other hon. Members will address that point.
As a result of the shortages that we face, Thames Valley officers are squeezed from both ends. Overtime levels are at a record high and, in the short term, officers like that situation, but it leads to increased stress in the long term. Having to work overtime just to put a roof over their heads is stressful. The problem is doubly bad in urban areas such as Slough and Reading, which attract many thousands of people from other areas, and that requires extra policing.
The Thames valley—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough will forgive me if, in discussing policing in Reading and the Thames valley, I mention her constituency from time to time—is a growth area with an

319
expanding population. Its police force has to protect the royal family and many other dignitaries. Some of them deserve such protection, but in the case of others the matter is open to debate. The area has extensive defence industries and major motorways. In short, it has a huge policing requirement, yet according to a Home Office table, in terms of the number of officers per 100,000 population, Thames Valley police force has been the third worst in the country since 31 March 2001. The best is Merseyside, with 351 officers per 100,000 people. Not unsurprisingly, that is followed by the Metropolitan police, which has 209 officers per 100,000. The Thames Valley force comes 41st out of 43, with 175 officers per 100,000 people, and the West Mercia force has 171. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) represents an area covered by the West Mercia force. As he is an Opposition Whip, he is banned from speaking, so I shall speak for him. At 43rd in the list is the Suffolk constabulary, with something over 160 officers per 100,000 people in its area.
Interestingly, my research leads me to believe that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was churlish not to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the increase of 84 police officers that has taken place in his force over the past 12 months. I am sure that, on behalf of the people of Cambridgeshire, my hon. Friend will be pleased that that information has been read into the record.
Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend share my anger at the low number of police per 100,000 people in Slough? The force covers a large area, but it is not just a rural force, as it also has to cover the urban area of Slough. The basic crime unit family includes other bits of police forces, all of which are in the Metropolitan police area in inner London.
Mr. Salter: My hon. Friend is right. Slough has all London's policing problems, yet it does not get the resources it needs. That is having a knock-on effect on neighbouring authorities. There are fundamental flaws in the way the crime unit families are constructed, in the notion of operational independence versus budgetary independence, and in resource allocation.
I turn now to the standstill—or modest increase—in police numbers over the past 10 years. Figures provided by the chief constable of the Thames Valley force—not by the Home Office, or Millbank—do not make good reading for Conservative Members. They show that on 31 March 1997, the force had a total of 3,695 officers, an all-time low. That was under a Conservative Government. Under the Labour Government, the force reached an all-time high of 3,765, although that is nothing to boast about. As a result of the crime fighting fund, the force now has 0.5 of an officer less than in 1999. The fund therefore has achieved no growth in police numbers at all.
The allocation of these meagre resources to the Thames Valley force has had an effect in the area. Admittedly, the boundaries involved have changed slightly in the period to which I want to refer, but the scale of the problem remains the same for Slough. In 1990, it had 585 officers, whereas now it has 237. Reading had 526 officers in 1990, and that number has fallen to 342.
The total resource allocation formula used to arrive at the figures ripped off Reading and Slough in a quite disgraceful way. That decision was taken under the
320
devolved powers given to the local police authority. I repeat: there is a world of difference between budgetary independence and operational independence.
There are many challenges involved in policing a regional centre. Reading has expanded out of all recognition. I have dug out the figures for crimes committed in the town centre. I assure my right hon. Friend the Minister that many of his constituents shop at the Oracle centre in Reading. We regularly bump into people from Cardiff, Bristol, Banbury and all over the place. We welcome them to our town, but their presence creates policing problems.
Between April 1999 and March 2001, shoplifting in Reading town centre rose by 16 per cent. In the same period, the number of robberies in the town centre rose by 61 per cent., and crimes of violence against the person rose by 60 per cent. There have been massive increases in incidents involving not, violent disorder and affray in Reading, with the figure rising from 1,400 in 1998–99 to 3,800 in the last full year.
How does the police funding formula address those issues? The answer is that it fails spectacularly to do so. I accept that no funding formula is perfect, but it would be difficult to devise a system that was less advantageous to towns such as Reading and Slough, which provide a huge range of services for tens of thousands of people who live in, and pay taxes in, communities many miles away.
I took the trouble to dig out the Library notes on the police funding formula. The factors used in the formula are worth quoting, as they include daytime population, resident population, unemployment, household renting, area cost adjustment and built-up road lengths. People asleep in bed or busy at work are not a major factor in the creation of crime, nor are lengths of built-up roads. These funding formula factors do not take into account the fact that in a town such as Reading 20,000 public entertainment licences are granted. Similar figures apply in Slough, Oxford and elsewhere. The night-time economy creates a tremendous strain on the police force.
I am delighted that the working group is meeting to consider the funding formula. I hope that a new formula can be devised and introduced by 2003–04 and that it will take into account the need for the policing requirements of a night-time population to be addressed.
I conclude with a parallel. It is a supreme irony that, prior to becoming Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was Secretary of State for Education and Employment. In education, the funding formula is very straightforward—the funding follows the pupil. In my town of Reading this year, as a result of boundary changes and other anomalies, we are expecting some 1,400 year 6 pupils to seek secondary education across the boundaries in west Berkshire or Wokingham. There is no problem with that because the funding follows the pupil—how could it be any other way?—yet does the funding follow the policing requirements of the night-time population of Slough or Reading? Does it heck!
I hope that the Minister has found this analysis useful. I look forward to meeting him to discuss the very real policing problems that we have in Reading and Slough and to addressing some of these important issues. It cannot be acceptable for the Government to put money in

321
and for my constituents not to see the benefit of the additional resources to which they have contributed in their taxes.
5.21 pm
Tony Baldry: I hope that the Minister pays particular attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). I agree with much of what he said, not least his concern about the haemorrhaging of police officers from the Thames valley area.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the Home Secretary's police grant allocation to the Thames Valley force, which polices my constituency in north Oxfordshire and Oxfordshire as a whole. The Home Secretary is a generous man. The Thames Valley police will now receive the fifth highest allowance from the Government, an appropriate amount that seemingly reflects the Home Secretary's funding formula of more money to those who need it most. Good stuff. However, it begs the question, what will the Thames Valley police do with the new grant? That is where we encounter a very real problem. The grant looks good on paper and in isolation, but it looks bad when one considers the detail of the Thames Valley's grant in comparison with other forces in England and Wales.
The Thames Valley's resources look meagre. Moreover, given the chronic problems of recruitment and, in particular, retention of police officers in the force. Home Office figures show that police strength within the Thames valley area has fallen year on year since 1997, and I hope that sooner or later the Home Office will wake up to that fact. The Thames Valley simply does not have the police officers to match the aspirations that come with such a grant.
Let us start with the basics of the funding formula for police grants. I alluded earlier to what the police grant report somewhat grandly refers to as the Home Secretary's principal formula. Also like the hon. Member for Reading, West, I have examined the principles behind the formula and have noted two interesting facts. First, paragraph 5.2 rightly says that the main determinants in the principal formula are the resident population and the day-time population. It says that cost adjustments are built into this formula for the socio-economic circumstances and the cost of provision between areas.
I do not dispute that Government principle. There is no doubt that the allocation of police grants should be made on the basis of the area's population demand on police officers and the cost of providing police officers. That principle means that the Thames Valley is allocated one of the country's highest grants.
The second Government principle, which I find interesting, is in paragraph 4.4, which states:
"The Home Secretary has decided that the greater London Authority on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Authority should receive additional funding in recognition of the Metropolitan Police's distinct national and capital city functions."
That justification is acceptable when the principle relates to population: there is no doubt that London officers have more people to police. However, the principle is less convincing if applied to the area costs for police officers in London against other forces in the south-east. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happens.
322
Why do the Government suddenly apply such a principle to police pay only if the officers work in London? It is clear from future funding allocations that the Government are still failing to tackle the core cause of crime in the Thames valley: the failure to recruit and—more important and of greater concern at present—the failure to retain police officers through a serious lack of resources for police pay. It is no good for the Government to trumpet what is after all only a marginal increase in money from the comprehensive spending review when they persistently refuse to recognise the need for additional resources for the south-eastern region.
Thames Valley police officers are in the worst of all possible worlds. Their cost of living, including housing, is high, yet they do not benefit from the additional allowances paid to London police officers. I suspect that almost every force in the country must look more attractive to police officers than the Thames Valley force.
Police officers in the Metropolitan force receive an annual London weighting of £1,773, with an additional London allowance of £1,001 and, on top of that, a further London allowance of as much as £3,327 each year. That means that a police officer in London could earn about £6,000 a year more than a police officer in the Thames valley for doing exactly the same job.
Furthermore, police officers in London also have free transport, so it is not uncommon—I am told by senior police officers in the Thames valley—for Thames Valley officers to see fellow police officers on railway stations on their way to work in London, where they will be paid significantly more, and being given free travel to do it. That is plainly unfair and unjustified.
Police officers in the south-east have to cope with a cost of living that the Government's principle does not seem to take into account when it comes to paying them. Last year, a survey by the Halifax found a massive 17 per cent. increase in house prices in the south-east, but only a 7 per cent. increase in the rest of England and Wales, yet the Government do not pay officers so as to reflect that difference. The Government recognise the "cost of provision" in police grants but completely ignore the same principle—the same costs—when paying police officers.
Moreover, we need to consider the difference in house prices in the south-east compared with London. The Land Registry's latest quarterly survey observes that house prices in London are rising more slowly than those outside the capital in the south-east region. Indeed, the Halifax survey also found that although house prices have risen by an average of £4,000 in London, they have risen by a staggering £26,000 in Oxfordshire over the same period. Why are the Government not funding police officers in north Oxfordshire as adequately as in north Acton? Why do the principles outlined in the report suddenly morph into thin air when it comes to police pay?
It is no wonder that police retention is at an all-time low in the Thames valley. A large number of officers resign for non-medical reasons. The consequence is often all too clear: there are too few officers to police towns such as Banbury and Bicester and the villages in my constituency. In the whole of north Oxfordshire, in towns such as Banbury and in the surrounding villages, there are often no more than four police officers on duty at any one time.
If the Government do not pay police officers in the Thames valley properly, the force will continue to haemorrhage experienced officers to other forces where

323
they can either earn more or live for less. London and the east midlands, on the borders of the Thames valley, offer both prospects to police officers, so why should officers come to the Thames valley?
As the hon. Member for Reading, West pointed out, the Thames Valley police force merely acts as an expensive training area for officers who move on. Even more important, when the beat inspector in Banbury sends out a team to police north Oxfordshire, it often includes a large proportion of new recruits. We lack the experience of senior officers who have moved elsewhere.
It was particularly insulting of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), in response to an oral question that I asked on the matter, to claim that Thames Valley officers must be paid less because the Government believe that it reflects
"the different circumstances and pressures"—[Official Report, 19 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 10.]
that they face, compared with the circumstances and pressures that they would face if they were doing the same job in other forces around the country. This is nonsense.
The Home Secretary's recent statement on police reform outlined that officers in all forces face the same problems in policing. Surely the fact that the Thames Valley is in the top five police grant receivers based on "resident population" and "socio- economic characteristics" would in itself indicate that police officers working in the area face at least the possibility of more pressure.
I have taken the liberty of leafing through the Home Office's own figures of recorded crime for 2001. They reveal that that possibility is very much a reality. Let us consider violent crime dealt with by each police force over the last year, which is a yardstick that, I hope most hon. Members would agree, presents officers with the "different circumstances and pressures" to which the Under-Secretary was presumably alluding. I found that police officers in the Thames valley had to deal with nearly 15,000 cases of violent crime—the 11th highest figure for the 41 forces. If it is the Government's principle to pay Metropolitan officers more because they deal with more cases of violent crime, why are police officers in north Wales paid the same as Thames Valley officers, when officers in north Wales have to deal with a third of the violent crimes that Thames Valley officers have to? Why is the apparent Government principle of paying less to officers doing a supposedly less important job ignored when it comes to Humberside police officers, who deal with 5,000 fewer violent crimes than those officers who work in the Thames valley?
The House might also like to note that the Halifax building society estimates that the cost of the average property in south Humberside is £46,700, whereas the same property in Oxfordshire would cost £162,450. It is little wonder that police officers are leaving.
It is pretty obvious why north Oxfordshire—and the Thames valley as a whole—continues to lose officers to other forces in England and Wales. Thames Valley police officers deserve sufficient pay to live on so that they can deliver to local people the peace of mind to which they are entitled. It is audacious of the Government to announce in their latest White Paper "Policing a New Century" that
"a fairer and better system is needed for paying police officers. As a general principle"—
324
I should like the House to note that phrase—
"the Government will be looking for ways of recognising and rewarding those who are at the frontline of public service, and in particular those shouldering the most difficult and demanding tasks".
For all those warm words, I do not find that "general principle" reflected in the pay awarded to uniformed police officers in the Thames Valley compared with uniformed officers in Humberside, North Wales or 30 or so other forces. The same lack of "general principle" is applied by the Government to officers, whether sergeants or inspectors, uniformed or detective.
I very much hope that the Government will take on board what Thames Valley police and Members of Parliament are saying this afternoon. I strongly suspect that the Minister will hear similar sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).
I recently received a copy of a letter that a police sergeant from my constituency wrote to the Home Secretary. At one point the officer made the observation that
"last week we had another murder in Oxford. The duty inspector phoned round off duty officers to find two to do a 12 hour duty on double pay to guard the scene—no takers! All already working".
It strikes me, therefore, that while the Thames Valley strives to achieve the Government's objectives, it will simply not have the resources to reach those targets without the almost superhuman efforts of existing officers.
The officer also asked the Home Secretary:
"do you really think that you are going to attract talented, professional people to the service, with the kind of output, that is apparently designed to undermine Police Officers' case to maintain their standard of living, coming from the Government recently? … those of my staff who have children rely on their overtime to keep their heads above water, financially."
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
5.34 pm
Ross Cranston: I welcome the record level of funding that has been announced, and, in particular, the amount allocated to the West Midlands force. I am also pleased with the crime fighting fund, now in its third year; later I shall discuss how the West Midlands force has benefited from the fund.
The 12 per cent. real-terms increase in funding between 2000–01 and 2003–04 is welcome because it means that the police will be in a better position to fulfil the task that we, as a society, expect of them. In addition to the revenue grants covered by the report, there are capital amounts. I welcome the amount that will be used to establish the DNA database and a computerised custody system.
I want to address some of the centralisation issues and swingeing powers, as they were called by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), and to try to show that there is nothing unusual in demanding accountability in the police as in other public services. It is axiomatic that the grant of money has a corollary—a responsibility to account for its use. Of course, there is the biblical parable of the three servants who were entrusted by their master with equal sums, and the one blessed was the one who used the money wisely in the master's absence. So there is nothing wrong with asking the police to account for the money granted. That accountability runs alongside the accountability that

325
operates at local level through police authorities and local partnerships. The issue is how to measure accountability, and one way to do so is through police performance.
Hon. Members are concerned that performance varies around the country, as is shown, for example, in recorded crime detection rates. I am pleased that the operational command unit in Dudley, North has the highest number of crimes detected per officer in the West Midlands force. I pay tribute to the police officers in my area for the sterling work that they do. That is a comfort to me as the local Member of Parliament, but I cannot be happy that recorded crime detection rates vary dramatically throughout the country. For example, the figure is less than 8 per cent. for burglary in some areas, whereas it is more than 43 per cent. in others. In some cases, the figure for robbery is as low as 15 per cent.; in others it is 50 per cent. No doubt, that variation can be explained in some cases by social and economic factors.
I recently received a strong letter from a constable in my constituency who told me that there was a vast difference between policing in the intense urban conurbation of the west midlands and policing in some of the more relaxed rural shires. There is a certain truth in what he had to say, but performance can and must be improved, so I welcome proposals, which we are not debating this afternoon, such as the creation of the standards unit, which will work alongside the inspectorate to identify and ventilate best practice.
Let me return to the theme of responsibility for using the grant wisely, and then accounting for performance. I raise that issue because the view has been expressed in some quarters that the police are in a different position from other public services. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) referred to the proposed arrangements to exercise a power to remove chief officers on grounds of inefficiency. Some of the other proposals have attracted fire on the basis that, somehow, the police do not have to account for money granted in the same way as other public services. I do not accept that.
At one level, accountability involves compliance with standards—for example, the performance standards to which I have referred: detection rates. At another level, accountability flows from the extent to which the police can be called to account for their behaviour—for example, police complaints procedures. Again, although this is not the subject of this debate, the new independent police complaints commission should enhance satisfaction with the way in which complaints against the police are handled. Incidentally, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond at some point on the issue of the complaints procedures operating internally. I have written to him about the extent to which the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 should apply to the police.
A third level of accountability for the money granted is political accountability. One dimension is the extent to which we ask questions about how the police operate. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) mentioned the issue of retention rates in the West Midlands force. To some extent, that parallels the issues raised by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) because, like the Thames Valley force, the West Midlands force has suffered from an attrition of officers. Last year, 101
326
officers left to join other forces. It was the worst year since 1997, when the ratio of leavers to new recruits was also 4:1. One explanation is that other areas have benefited from the crime fighting fund and can now recruit as they could not in the past. Therefore, people who have been trained in the West Midlands force are now going back to their home areas.
Another point mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister in correspondence is that the attrition rate in the police force remains low compared with other public services. I also take that point into account. I hope that, in the coming year, he will address issues such as the discrepancy in allowances, to which hon. Members have referred this afternoon. Certainly, the Police Federation in the west midlands has raised with all hon. Members who have constituencies in the area the issue of a special housing allowance, and the fact that that was abolished in the 1990s.
Accountability in terms of asking questions about how the money is spent can be carried out in the House, and it can also be done locally. I shall see my chief constable in the near future and I shall raise with him the issue of allocation of officers in the West Midlands force. In terms of figures on crimes recorded as opposed to officers allocated, I shall make the point—it may have a detrimental effect on other constituencies—that Dudley, North should have more officers.
Another dimension to the issue of accountability for the money granted is the argument, which was echoed in the opening remarks of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, that the police are somehow unaccountable and independent. Some very old legal authorities say that police officers are independent officers of the law, and are not servants of anyone—they are only answerable to the law itself. That analysis is deeply flawed.
Norman Baker: Is not the prime method of accountability the local, elected and accountable police authority? Does not taking more power to the centre weaken that accountability?
Ross Cranston: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has followed the flow of my remarks. Accountability operates at a range of levels—there is local accountability and national accountability. Hon. Members must be able to raise questions in the House about what happens.
I reject the notion that the police are different and do not have to be accountable. It is certainly a constitutional imperative that there can be no interference in their individual case decisions. That would be monstrous. However, it is perfectly consistent with constitutional principle that the police grants that we are considering should be conditional on the police acting accountably in terms of their behaviour and their performance.
5.44 pm
Mr. Keith Simpson: I wish to address the problems faced by Norfolk police. Governments of both persuasions have historically provided a relatively low level of funding for our police. I would not claim that our problems are as intense as some of those faced in inner-city conurbations, but I hope that the Minister will take my points on board.
The Minister knows that expenditure on policing per head of population in Norfolk is the 10th lowest in England and Wales. It is the second largest county, but it

327
has the fourth lowest ratio of police officers to population, and the police face increased demands for their services. Norfolk's population rose from 759,000 in 1991 to nearly 800,000 last year. More than I million tourists visit the county in the course of a year. Although we welcome them, they place an additional strain on policing. Like other areas, Norfolk has a royal residence, at Sandringham, and significant military bases. Those are vulnerable to terrorism and the Norfolk police force is involved in their protection.
The number of 999 calls to the force control room in 1996–97 was 63,000. It is anticipated that by the end of this year the number will have risen to 110,000, an increase of 72 per cent. Even with the use of civilian resources, that places an additional strain on the police service. There has also been an increase in certain types of crime. Crime has decreased in many parts of the country, but the Minister knows that there is a fear of crime in rural areas. In Norfolk, we had the high-profile case of Tony Martin, and there has been an increase in robbery and vandalism in many rural communities. We now have the prospect of the damage caused by raves, especially on farms. Like other hon. Members, we have a problem with travellers who, two Christmases ago, descended on Great Yarmouth, which put an enormous strain on policing.
Next year's Government grant for Norfolk represents a 3.6 per cent. increase, which is the second highest budget increase after Derbyshire. Other hon. Members may well ask what I have to complain about. The increase is warmly welcomed, but it does not begin to meet the requirements of the Norfolk police. The reality is that it brings the police authority to a standstill. It requires an increase of at least 4 per cent., and even at that level, according to the police authority, recruitment and current service levels could not be maintained.
The standstill budget will not enable the police force to reach its target on the recruitment of officers. As the Minister knows, Norfolk already has one of the lowest officer to population ratios.
David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Simpson: No, I am sorry, but I have limited time.
Indeed, the Norfolk police force has identified that it needs an additional 340 officers fully to meet all anticipated requirements in the medium term. The increase will not enable investment in necessary information technology infrastructure. To give but one example, Norfolk is one of only two forces still on Holmes I—it sounds like something out of Arthur Conan Doyle—which is an obsolescent and largely discarded computer system for use in major incident inquiries. Nor can the increase provide dedicated air cover. Geographically Norfolk is one of the largest counties with a long coastline, but its police force is one of only four without dedicated police helicopter cover.
Those specific examples of serious weaknesses in police cover in Norfolk would be bad enough in the context of a standstill budget had the Government not already rejected specific bids by the county. In December last year, Norfolk police force learned that its bid for funding to help to pay for a £13.5 million upgrade in the county's police technology under the capital
328
modernisation fund had been unsuccessful. The bid was essential for the development of the force's information and communication technology infrastructure to enable implementation of the national strategy for police information system applications that the Government require all forces to employ. The chief constable advised the Home Secretary that that left Norfolk police in the position of having either to fund those infrastructure requirements by taking money from current activity, or to slow down—or even to halt—some aspects of the implementation programme during the next four to five years.
The Home Office has also been unhelpful in Norfolk's bid for Government funding for a helicopter. Norfolk police asked the Home Office for £1 million to cover the full cost of buying a reconditioned second-hand helicopter. They explained that a helicopter could save hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, as well as facilitating the arrest of criminals. They gave the example of Dyfed-Powys police, who saved £22 million over three years by using a helicopter rather than police on the ground.
The Home Office, however, said that the money could be provided for a helicopter only on a 50:50 basis, with half coming from the Government and half from the police force. At a meeting in December, the police explained to the Home Office that half-funding a new helicopter would cost the Government £1 million—enough money to buy a second-hand helicopter outright—but the Home Office said that funding rules could not be changed and that Norfolk police would have to use their own budget. Reluctantly, Norfolk police withdrew their bid as they needed what money they had to recruit extra police personnel and upgrade force technology.
Norfolk police, like many other police, find themselves in the worst of all possible binds, from which it appears that there is no way out. They are bidding against other police forces. The biggest irony of everything that I have just identified—the lack of money to spend on new technology or provide a helicopter—is that next week Her Majesty the Queen opens a new purpose-built police headquarters south of Norwich, provided under the Government public-private partnership scheme. However, like many other Government PPP schemes, such as the recently opened Norfolk and Norwich hospital, it leaves much to be desired. The new centralised police headquarters which, if properly equipped and manned, would save money and deliver better policing, is likely to be a largely empty box. It will not have new information technology, the need for which the Home Office itself has identified, and it will not be able to communicate with police personnel on the ground. The chief constable has already admitted that he does not have enough police men and women on the ground. A further bind is that money is not available to provide a helicopter.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that Norfolk, despite receiving what appears to be a headline-worthy good grant, has a standstill budget. Will he look again, both at Norfolk's bid for funding for an upgrade of the police ICT infrastructure and the rules for funding the purchase of a second-hand helicopter? Otherwise, Norfolk police will be unable to provide a proper service to meet current requirements, let alone future ones. At the end of the day, the police men and women who have to deliver that service will decide, not that there is a better police force to go to, but that there are better jobs.

329
Last Sunday, there was a new episode of "A Touch of Frost". The irony of that programme is that there is a contradiction between two types of policing—Inspector Frost is the old lag who cuts corners, bends the rules and is concerned with tackling crime on the streets, and Superintendent Mullett is the managerial policeman, who is primarily concerned with paperclip counting. Modern policing requires both characteristics in the same man or woman; I regret that, although the funding provided so far appears generous, we will not end up with the kind of men and women whom Norfolk requires.
5.54 pm
Mr. David Drew: It is always a delight to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson); his analogies about how television cops relate to real life gives us a spirit of realism. I shall try to keep my remarks brief so that other Members can contribute to this important debate. It is traditional that I take part, and I usually do so with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), but since she has been elevated to the Front Bench, it looks like I will be the one to keep going from year to year.
The Government's action sends out some good signals. I congratulate them on listening to people on three issues. Simply getting more police out on the beat is a measure of the effective role played by my right hon. Friend the Minister. That increase is being achieved in my area, despite a difficult position; we are experiencing retirements and are approaching a particularly difficult time in a few years as the big police increases under the last Labour Government have an impact on retirement, creating the need for further recruitment. The revenue that the police have received will result in capital spending, and I shall say more about that in a minute.
I congratulate the Government on keeping Gloucestershire constabulary; there was a movement to get rid of small police forces and amalgamation was held to be the way forward. I am pleased that we have been listened to locally; we have come up with a sensible compromise, involving better working arrangements with other emergency services, principally ambulance and fire services, which has resulted in the tri-service initiative that the Government helped to fund. Gloucestershire police will move to a new headquarters, which has changed attitudes radically, although not without problems, as my right hon. Friend the Minister will know. However, it is a good sign that there are improvements and that we are being listened to.
I do not wish to rehearse arguments that have already been made, but there are drawbacks to being a relatively small force. We have talked a lot about budgets. Ours is not one of the areas that is singing from the rooftops about what it has received, and it has misgivings about ring fencing, but genuine increases have been made and we will work within our budget. As a smaller force, the implied savings cut us to the quick. I had a meeting with the chief constable recently, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will pick up our plea for dispensation, not necessarily now, but when it comes to renegotiating budgets. Having efficiency savings year on year is an attractive notion, but they are difficult for smaller forces
330
to achieve. Can some dispensation be allowed? Although we have to be efficient, that should not be at the cost of good, effective services. That issue has not yet been brought out in our debate.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the sparsity factor which, I hope, will play a part in future negotiations and help us to achieve an even better budget settlement and a sensible replacement for the standard spending assessment. However, I am sure that that argument has been heard; our debate can only enhance it.
Every year, I discuss the impact of the pensions time bomb, but the problem is more acute this year than in previous years, and I urge my right hon. Friend to recognise it. It is not of our making; the deal was done under the Thatcher Government to keep the police on board, coincidentally or not at the time of the miners' strike. Police officers make a considerable contribution to their pension, but it is virtually impossible to improve the provision that they have. We are trying to negotiate with the Police Federation which, I understand, is listening; we shall have to come up with a sensible compromise, but that is not easy. I am sure that that is behind the vote which, I hope, is in favour of modernisation.
Whenever I talk to the police, they moan about the contribution that they have to make, but they also think about their future, as they retire on a good pension, probably the best in the public sector, if not any sector. It is difficult to improve that provision, but we must grasp the problems that it presents because, if it is affordable now, it will certainly not be in five or 10 years' time. I am a bit worried that there is already evidence of backtracking. Even if change is painful in the short term, the Government have to see through the transition to a more sensible system.
I am pleased with the capital arrangements which, although not generous, are helpful to Gloucestershire. They have helped the tri-service arrangements and the movement towards the Airwave system. In Gloucestershire we have some difficulties—I shall be careful how I phrase this, as an inquiry is going on—getting the planning applications through for the masts so that the system can be put in place. I always try to explain to people that, although the introduction of such systems must be measured and the precautionary principle upheld, in a couple of years we will lose the analogue system. If we do not have a digital system in place, there will be no police communications. The ambulance and fire services will no doubt also seek to digitalise and use Airwave equipment.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind that if we are a little slow getting there, that does not mean that we do not want help from the Government. We just need some time to convince people that the system is the right system, that we are very careful about the siting of masts, certainly away from schools, and that we try to make sure that all the equipment goes on the same masts. We want the system put in place and we want it funded, as the existing system is unacceptable. It causes enough difficulty, as I know from going out with the police. The only thing that would be more unacceptable is no communications system at all. We must push the new system through.
Other hon. Members have touched on the need to recognise the changing nature of policing. It is a bureaucratic nightmare, but that is the nature of the

331
society in which we live. The police are expected to account for the decisions that they take, and arresting people is probably one of their more important tasks. I shall not rehearse my exchange with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), but if we can help with the process and minimise the amount of paperwork, that would be useful. The process must be transparent, it must be funded appropriately, and people must have confidence in it.
David Taylor: With reference to reducing the paperwork burden on police officers, as a public institution and a public service, the police force, second only to this place, needs significantly higher levels of investment in information and communications technology to support its day-to-day work. If my hon. Friend speaks to police in his authority, particularly detective sergeants and police constables, they will tell him what proportion of their time they spend on such unproductive work.
Mr. Drew: My hon. Friend almost reads my mind, but not quite. I accept his point, but the problem is not an internal police matter. It involves the relationship with the Crown Prosecution Service, whether that relationship is conducted through computers or by human beings talking to one another. I have some misgivings. We have moved on from the impasse a few years ago involving who spoke to whom and how that was done. It is a resource issue and also a matter of cultures. Communication is improving, but it would help if there were computer systems that could talk to each other better. That will be expensive and take time, because technology does not seem to do what we want it to do at the appropriate moment.
I am assured that the situation is improving. It would be nice to think about local solutions, but it merely exacerbates the problem if police forces get their own systems and the CPS does not do all that we want it to do. There must be some centralisation, although I know that my chief constable and the Association of Chief Police Officers are a little worried about the apparent loss of independence. They are worried about the pressures on them to deliver policing in their area.
Effective centralisation is the only way forward. We must recognise that policing at the level of divisions, not even at the level of a county force, is where decisions have to be taken and priorities outlined, so that people have confidence in their police and policing is carried out in the most appropriate way.
I am happier this year. In the negotiations that are taking place nationally, the Government's position is clear. I wish that progress could be made more quickly, but I do not want any confrontation with the police. They are my friends, and I go out with them regularly in my constituency, so I see the problems that they have. We need to move on to make sure that the police are effective and deliver value for money, as we all want them to do.
6.5 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Several hon. Members have spoken about the proportion of the overall increase of 6.1 per cent. in the provision for policing that is being made available
332
through total standard spending to enable police authorities to meet their responsibilities, and the proportion being allocated by the Home Office for its own purposes or governed by the Home Office for initiatives that must be delivered as priorities by police authorities. I shall begin with that, and then touch on particular issues relating to Cambridgeshire, to which other hon. Members have already referred.
Of the overall 6.1 per cent.—£550 million—only about 40 per cent. is being allocated to total standard spending. So much of it is being allocated by central Government that the ability of police authorities to meet their responsibilities is being undermined. The Home Office sets its priorities for police authorities. Happily, after years of neglecting such matters, it is beginning to talk about important issues such as visible policing.
For police services such as my own in Cambridgeshire, visibility of policing is intensely difficult to achieve, given the relatively low numbers of police. Cambridgeshire has the second lowest level of funding per head of population of any police authority in the country. It is all very well setting an overall level of provision for policing, but if, as a consequence of Home Office priorities and control over spending, local police authorities cannot meet their responsibilities, there will be a deterioration in the visibility of policing, the prevention of crime and the ability to detect crime and follow it up.
We are beginning to see that in Cambridgeshire. The number of incidents has gone up by 20 per cent. in the past few years and is projected to increase at a faster rate. The number of 999 calls is going up dramatically. The ability of the police to respond to and follow up crime and to act proactively in local communities is being diminished.
The Home Office may assume that it makes provision for its own priorities, but that is not the case. In Cambridgeshire, some of the demands have to be met from the police authority's budget, and go beyond what is provided centrally by the Home Office for its own priorities. For example, £1 million is required from the local budget for the Airwaves project, £734,000 in the coming year for the implementation of the action for justice programme, £308,000 for the DNA programme, and £234,000 for the new national crime recording system. The police authority must meet those needs from its budgets, and that diminishes the sum available for its own priorities.
The situation is even worse than that. The police authority has to meet pay and pension pressures far in excess of what has been provided by the Home Office. The Home Office has said that standard spending should rise by 2.6 per cent., but grant has risen by only 2.3 per cent. There is a national settlement of 3.5 per cent. for police officers, and pension costs for the authority are rising at about 6 per cent. After the pay, inflation and pension costs have been absorbed, there is no room for any response to other local pressures. All the Home Office priorities, in addition to those that I mentioned, are biting deeply into the authority's ability to provide policing.
What is the net result? We have a modest increase in police numbers after a decline and years of trying to attain the same number of police as in 1997. However, with a modest increase in the precept for the council tax precept, the prospect for next year is that we will not meet the gateway criteria for the crime fighting fund, and will

333
therefore lose the additional 24 police who should be available through it. That is contrary to the views of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who is no longer here to hear the facts. If the police authority implemented a precept of 10 per cent., it would lose the gateway criteria and the 24 additional police. It would no longer be able to maintain its normal recruitment, and the net result would be a decline in the number of police in Cambridgeshire.
To fulfil the requirement for a 4 per cent. increase in the budget, the police authority would have to increase its precept by 20 per cent. to respond to the pressures and demands of policing in Cambridgeshire, and we are relatively underpoliced compared with the rest of the country and the police authority has to consult on a possible 30 per cent. increase in the precept in the council tax. Other increases are also being considered, including a possible 9.3 per cent. by the county council, and the district council has to consider an increase of 40 per cent. in its previously modest precept. That adds up to substantial pressures on individuals through the council tax.
The Home Office is chasing a headline figure of 6.1 per cent. and it has not accurately related it to the pressures that it places on police authorities. It is indifferent to the fact that some police authorities will have to increase the council tax dramatically, and it did not attempt to cut its coat according to local cloth. In future, it would be better for the Home Office to start by considering the policing that it wants to achieve locally and provide for greater devolution of budgets and discretion to enable local police authorities to fulfil their responsibilities.
The obvious candidate for such devolution is the crime fighting fund, and rural policing should also be taken into account in future formula allocations in order to provide properly for it. We should also take proper account of the cost of living. Other hon. Members have talked about inadequate consideration of the cost of living and the provision of a service in places outside London, such as the Thames valley.
If I have an opportunity later, I may speak about the area cost adjustment in more detail. However, people in the Thames valley should note that they will receive an 8 per cent. uplift in their allocation through the area cost adjustment, which is not available to Cambridgeshire. Yet housing costs and labour market pressures in Cambridge are at least as great as those in north Oxfordshire.
Earlier, I asked about the net result. An authority and a police service in Cambridgeshire, which have historically been poorly funded by Government, will receive an increase in grant of only 2.3 per cent. this year. Whatever other priorities may exist, the net result for my constituents will be a large increase in council tax simply to maintain existing levels of policing. They want more police to deal with the greater incidence of crime, the greater number of 999 calls and the recent increases in recorded crime.
6.13pm
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I shall be brief. I congratulate the Government on the settlement for the police force in my
334
area of Cleveland, which received an increase of 4.47 per cent. If we take into account the crime fighting fund, the rural fund and the capital increases, and compare the figures with those for last year, we have received an increase of 4.9 per cent.
The figures are much higher than those under the previous Government. They appear to be increasing under our Government because of the great success of the dynamic economy that they have created. We have thus been able to allocate more money to constituencies such as mine.
The rural part of my constituency—60 per cent. of it is rural—will benefit most, because the targeted money will help greatly. We have made good progress through the crime fighting fund: under it approximately 74 officers have been allocated for 2000–03. We recruited 20 officers under that fund last year; we hope that we will be allocated 36 new officers by the end of this year; and we hope to have a further allocation of 18 officers for 2002–03.
We have also made progress on recruitment. Police numbers have increased from 1,407 in March last year to 1,434. The Government's spirit in tackling crime and ensuring that there are enough police officers to deal with it is a credit to the Labour party.
My right hon. Friend made the allocation of 4.47 per cent., which I and other Members of Parliament who represent the area appreciate, but there is a discrepancy. I understand that the Government based their calculations on tax band D and reached a figure of 7p a week for the police precept. The police authority tells me that the precept that it expects means approximately 50p a week. Its method of calculating the required amount for fighting crime and that of the Government have led to two different figures. I should be interested to know what my right hon. Friend considers to be a sensible figure. Ultimately, we must have the support of the communities that we represent and ensure that they are willing to back the increases in the police precept.
I should also be interested to know whether my right hon. Friend believes that the local authority should consult the people of Cleveland before it sets the police precept. We are considering accountability and carrying the agreement of the people, so it is important to note that the four boroughs are not keen on the increases that the police authority has mentioned, and they therefore need a steer. They told me that the police authority can impose whatever figure it wishes. I do not know whether that is true and I await my right hon. Friend's response.
I am satisfied that the Government have made great strides in tackling crime and I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend's views.
6.17 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I shall try to truncate my remarks because other hon. Members wish to speak.
On the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), devolving policing responsibilities to the National Assembly for Wales is becoming a live issue. All the parties in the Assembly support that, and I hope that it will happen.
The Welsh total constitutes a 0.8 per cent. increase on last year, although it represents a decrease of 0.6 per cent. for North Wales police authority. It is interesting to note

335
that although Wales has a higher police grant, the Welsh proportion of the overall budget decreased slightly. However, the figure is back up to 4.9 per cent. this year.
The proposed settlement provides for an increase of 2.8 per cent. in police authority funding to support local services next year. However, many areas are pegged to the floor at 2.3 per cent. We know about the pressures on budgets, which have already been mentioned, and which include pay awards for police and support staff at 3.5 per cent., the police pension, which is a big issue, and the local cost of implementing national priorities.
A letter from the chairperson of the Association of Police Authorities to the Home Secretary on 14 January 2002 states:
"Our concerns are heightened by the approach adopted by the Welsh Assembly. Police authorities in Wales operate within the overall framework for policing set by the Home Secretary, including decisions on the allocation of police grant. However, local taxation is a matter for the Welsh Assembly, which has given a very clear indication of its expectations that police authorities in Wales should keep the increase in council tax to an overall maximum of 5 per cent. This stance is inconsistent with the overall policy intentions set by the Home Office, and with the practical implementation of issues such as the Crime Fighting Fund, where police authorities need to ensure sufficient funding to maintain baseline recruitment targets in order to access the Crime Fighting Fund."
The letter goes on in a similar vein. That important issue has already been mentioned, so I shall not dwell on it now.
North Wales police feel aggrieved at the settlement. The Treasury gave the Home Office an additional 6.1 per cent. to spend on the police, but the amount that the Home Office has given directly is only about 2.8 per cent. The rest has gone to central schemes that hon. Members have already mentioned, and to rural forces. It is, of course, welcome that £30 million has been made available under the rural policing fund, and £65 million under Airwave for 2002–03. That is all well and good, but police forces have to bid for those funds, and there is no guarantee that they will receive them.
This settlement does not guarantee the protection of the present spending commitments of the North Wales force. There is a real danger here, because 80 per cent. of the police budget goes on people, and if North Wales police are unsuccessful with their bids, there is a big possibility that they will be forced to downsize, leading to job losses. Overall—not just in the police strand—north Wales has received a 2.3 per cent. increase from the Home Office, of which 2 per cent. will go on pensions. The rest, apparently, will be expected to form the revenue budget for this year.
Of course, not all police funding for Wales comes from the Home Office; 22 per cent. comes from council tax receipts, and 32 per cent. from the National Assembly, from non-domestic rates receipts. The Assembly has given the police authority an increase of 4 per cent. this year, because that is what was expected from the Home Office. The Assembly has pledged to stick to that figure, even though the Home Office has made an increase of only 2.3 per cent. That will, therefore, leave a considerable shortfall. North Wales police need a 5.9 per cent. increase just to stand still. With the settlements from the Home Office and the Assembly, they will receive a 3.5 per cent. increase, so it will fall to local council tax payers to bear the burden of the shortfall. This is made worse because the National Assembly has said that it will cap any increase if it thinks it necessary to do so.
336
The university of Bangor recently conducted a survey of 500 people. Sixty-six per cent. said that there were too few officers in the area; 64 per cent. said that North Wales police were delivering value for money; and 75 per cent. agreed that they were prepared to pay more council tax to have more police. The local authorities in north Wales find themselves between a rock and a hard place. If they substantially raise the precept to ensure access to the crime fighting fund, they will be capped by the National Assembly, so they are in real difficulty at the moment.
South Wales police—and other police forces in Wales—are relatively happy with their settlement, but they echo what North Wales police have said about inflationary costs. Furthermore, much of the money that the Treasury has given to the Home Office will be held centrally. Although some of the central schemes are very good, they will have to be part of the bidding process. According to the crime and police figures, there were 6,592 officers in Wales in 1997. By 2000, there had been an increase of roughly 200. The manpower figures seem to be improving slowly but surely.
I am acutely aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I am the only Welsh Member in the debate. I shall come to a close fairly swiftly, to be fair to other colleagues. Welsh police forces are doing a splendid job; their detection rate of 41 per cent. is better than the English average of 24 per cent. In the Dyfed-Powys area, for example, the rate is 63 per cent., and in Gwent it is 57 per cent. Those areas are the best by a long shot.
On Tuesday this week, there was a debate in the National Assembly for Wales on devolving all these matters to the Assembly, so that it could be on a par with the Scottish Parliament. Such a move is overdue, and the funding problems—the perennial banging on doors and desks—would come to an end if the matter were dealt with centrally in Cardiff. I do not often quote the Labour First Minister of the Assembly with any degree of confidence, but he has said that that is the "next natural step."
Interestingly, several senior police officers in Wales openly support such a move. At this late stage, I must declare an interest. My brother is a serving police inspector in the North Wales police force—not that my speech is likely to affect his life very much! If, as the Government say, this settlement and the previous ones were so fantastic, I doubt that senior police officers would be showing support for devolution of this power.
6.25 pm
Patrick Mercer: I shall try not to iterate the points that have been so much better made by a number of other hon. Members, and I shall confine myself entirely to Nottinghamshire. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and to the Minister for teeing me up—being my warm-up act, if you like—on Nottinghamshire, whose constabulary, it has rightly been pointed out, has urban proportions of crime but shire funding and shire manning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) referred to the now infamous Tony Martin case. That is a style of crime that my constituency—which covers Newark and Retford—mercifully sees only occasionally. The two boys in the case—one was killed, the other wounded—came from the Hawtonville estate in Newark. Crime that ends in a fatality is mercifully rare in

337
my neck of the woods. Much more typical are the comments that I get two or three times a week from the likes of James Clark from Hawtonville, who told me that he is pestered all the time by mobs of youths, or from the residents of the parish of East Drayton whom I met last week, who told me that they do not see a police car for months on end. Also typical are the comments of the people of Retford, who told me that when there was a slight traffic accident in the town, the police switchboard was completely blocked.
I find myself acting as an apologist for the police, not because of their conduct—which I universally admire—hut because of the funding issue, to which we must return each and every time. Stephen Green, the chief constable of Nottinghamshire police, has put out a press release today, in which he describes the challenges that he faces. I have known him for 25 years—we were at Sandhurst together—and he is very open in his comments to me. It is clear to him that his force has to cope with the same level of recorded crime as Merseyside, although it is funded and manned only at the level of a shire force.
To refer back to a point that the Minister made earlier, the chief constable can deal with crime in Nottingham—just. Perhaps, at a pinch, he can deal with crime in places such as Mansfield. But he cannot deal with conurbation crime while also dealing with the market towns of Newark and Retford, and with the many villages in between. He cannot do both tasks with the men and women at his disposal. He must identify the main effort, and he does so—rightly, in my opinion—where the serious crimes occur.
In Newark and Retford, we largely face petty crimes. With the A1 running through the constituency, we have a lot of speeding and motor-related crime. Yet, suddenly, Newark has had five armed robberies in as many weeks, and people are beginning to run scared in an area that should be a sleepy hollow, but which is rapidly turning into a bit of a hot spot.
I am grateful to the Government—I shall try not to be churlish, as there have been comments on that from Labour Members—for the police numbers that the chief constable deploys today. He says that he will have 177 extra officers on the beat in the next year. That is great. Eighty-nine of them, however, will have to be found from within his own resources. That means that he will be taking people out of desk jobs and putting them back on the beat, so far as he can. I understand how difficult that will be in such an institution.
There will be 52 new recruits—rookies—coming in, and it will take some time for them to become effective. In addition, 36 experienced hands may be taken from the Thames Valley force and lured away to Nottinghamshire. Who can blame them? One would hope that life would be much better in the quieter parts of rural Nottinghamshire, so long as there are enough people to keep a lid on the rapidly changing situation.
The funding, however, is a completely different issue. I have already asked the Prime Minister why £3.3 million is being added to Nottinghamshire's funds in the next financial year. That is a 2.5 per cent. increase in cash terms, but no increase whatever in real terms. Once the costs of police pensions, equipment, recruitment and the like have been added, Nottinghamshire police face a real-terms funding decrease.
338
The chief constable, Stephen Green, told me that he will make up for that decrease in funding and will fund the new officers—I repeat that I am grateful for them—by adding to the council tax precept in constituencies such as mine. Newark and Retford face an increase of over 20 per cent. in the council tax precept, yet given the increase in crime in Nottingham, I suspect that we shall see very few extra officers. We have been promised a new police station. We do not really want a new police station, because that neither deters nor detects; it is merely there to represent power. We need officers on the beat.
My final point to the Minister is this: 60 per cent. of my postbag revolves around law and order issues in my constituency. Police funding in Nottinghamshire has caused my constituents to begin to resent the police. The police find it almost impossible to recruit special constables—the no-cost option for local policing—and more and more people blame the police officers, rather than the funding and resourcing, for the way in which crime is being tackled.
As I said earlier, I try to redress that by explaining to my constituents that Nottinghamshire constabulary, particularly Newark and Retford police, do a fine job. However, if the Minister continues to underfund forces such as Nottinghamshire, which have extremely difficult decisions to make, he will continue to set the police against the population.
6.32 pm
Mr. David Cameron: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I shall shorten my remarks and concentrate purely on the position in the Thames valley, as my constituency is in that police area.
Funding for the Thames Valley force is being increased by just 2.6 per cent. That is one of the lowest increases in the country, but I suppose we should be grateful that it is an increase at all. I want to set that figure against the particular situation that we face. We heard a powerful speech from the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), who told us how he had been bashed over the head by a policeman when he was on the Grunwick picket line. It seems to have done little harm to his thinking, because he got the point absolutely right: a cold look at the figures shows that the Thames Valley is hard done by.
Figures on the Home Office website show that there are, on average, 183.9 constables per 100,000 of the population. The Thames Valley force has the third lowest number in the country—just 135 constables per 100,000 of the population. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the reason for that when he winds up the debate. It is certainly not because of the crime rate in the Thames valley, where the number of offences per 100,000 of the population is 8,883. That is much higher than the national average and higher than the average for the south-east or the south-west.
The position seems to have worsened. The figures for police strength show that in the 12 months to September 2001, police numbers fell by 1.1 per cent. in the Thames valley, whereas they are increasing in other areas. The Minister said that he was turning the tide; in the Thames valley, the tide seems to be ebbing rather than flowing. The problem is not helped by the fact that last year Thames Valley police recruited an extra 50 special constables but lost 114 through wastage.

339
Part of the problem is revealed when we look at the situation on the ground, rather than at the figures in the blue book. Oxfordshire in the Thames valley has some of the highest house prices and the highest cost of living in the United Kingdom—perhaps that is why some of our officers find their way on the road to Nottingham. The Thames Valley police area abuts the Metropolitan police area. As the hon. Member for Reading, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, Met officers receive a cost-of-living allowance totalling some £6,000 a year, whereas the maximum available to Thames Valley officers is just £2,000.
House prices in Oxfordshire are close to the average for Greater London and much higher than in many London boroughs. Figures from the Library show that in 2001 the average price of a house in Oxfordshire was £180,000, compared with £94,000 in Barking—to choose one London borough at random. Is it any wonder that officers are leaving to go to the Met for more money, or to go to the south-west or the north for lower living costs? The Government are going in the wrong direction by not addressing the problem of police numbers in the Thames Valley force.
On Friday night, I went on the beat with the police in Witney. It brought home to me the fact that, whatever money they get next year, we must ensure that it addresses the real problems that they face. An officer took me through a common assault case with which he had been dealing. The paperwork, which I have in my hand, consists of 18 sheets of paper on which the defendant's name had to be written over and again. Even at a cursory glance, many of the forms appear to be duplicated.
When we went out on the beat, the officer showed me the radios, which are truly local: if a problem arises in Oxford or Banbury, police officers cannot radio other officers in Witney or talk to their base because the radio waves are clocked. If somebody is arrested, there are not enough custody sergeants—I assume that some of them have gone to Nottingham—so the cells in Witney police station are often shut.
Thus the problem is a lack of officers—that problem is getting worse—and not enough specials to support those officers; poor local communications for making arrests; and far too much paperwork when an arrest is made. If an arrest is made, the suspect must be taken all the way to Banbury when the cells in Witney are shut.
It is a sorry tale and a poor way to treat public servants who do a magnificent job. They deserve more than they are getting at the moment.
6.37 pm
Angela Watkinson: I am a Member of a Metropolitan police family, so not surprisingly I rise to speak in support of them and their need for increased manpower. I would suggest targets far in excess of the modest ones that the Government have set.
When Gilbert and Sullivan said that a policeman's lot is not a happy one, they were right and they are still right. At a time of increased pressure from the rise in certain types of crime, particularly drug-related violent crime, robberies and vandalism, the Metropolitan police are 600 men down on their 1997 figure.
The public perception is that criminals are getting away with it and that there is no point in reporting crime. Nobody knows the real crime levels because of
340
that unreported element, but the public perception is universally that we need more policemen. In London, one is five times more likely to become a victim of crime than somebody who lives in New York.
Morale is pivotal to recruitment and retention. The recent recruitment through training centres is extremely welcome, but we must also retain experienced officers. The proposal to offer a £1,000 incentive to delay the retirement of experienced officers is welcome. It is also a very good deal for the police because that £1,000 will be repaid many times over by the unpaid pension payments. The high level of early retirement on health grounds is an indication of poor morale within the police force.
Mr. Denham: If the hon. Lady believes that that is an indication of poor morale in the police service, does she agree that police morale was much worse five years ago, when the level of ill health retirement was much higher?
Angela Watkinson: That is not my experience, and it is not what the people I have spoken to tell me.
Will the Minister clarify a response that I received to a written question about the Metropolitan police training schools? I understand that there is now an almost 100 per cent. pass rate. Indeed, that is necessary if the targets on police resources are to be met. Will he compare that with the 1960s, when there was an almost 50 per cent. pass rate? I hope that the improved figures are due to a higher standard of recruit and not a lowering of entry requirements.
The London borough of Havering is a low crime area by London standards. It has nine fewer officers than in 1997, and the overall crime rate has increased by 23.7 per cent. The council tax is rocketing, and the Mayor of London has levied a precept of an additional 35 per cent. He claims that the extra money is required to fund the 1,050 additional police constables needed in the metropolitan area, but only £17 million of the £166 million raised will be used for that purpose. The lion's share of the funding for those 1,050 will come from the crime fighting fund. We can only speculate on what Mayor Livingstone intends to use the rest of that money for.
Havering, as an outer-London borough, often has to provide additional support for security in the capital, and it needs extra police for that, because it often leaves Havering's numbers depleted. In the borough, Romford has the highest concentration of night-time leisure and entertainment centres and nightclubs outside the west end of London, and 13,000 people converge on those nightclubs every night. That puts enormous strain on Havering police, who do a good job but are stretched to the limit. The other parts of the borough are often left virtually unpoliced because of the demands of the nightclubs in Romford.
I have lost count of the number of constituents who have said to me that they want visible policing. They want to see police on the beat. I know that that is not the modern method of policing, and it is considered to be ineffective and inefficient, but that is what the general public want. An enormous increase in manpower would be needed to enable Havering police to beat police the entire borough with three shifts. Modest increases are not enough. If we are to satisfy public demand for beat policing, we need huge increases in manpower. That is

341
what the public want. What the police want is the backing of senior officers, the Government and the Crown Prosecution Service.
6.43 pm
Mr. Paice: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a few comments in response to the debate. I know that the Minister wants to respond more fully, and I do not intend to take long.
Few hon. Members, other than one or two Government lackeys, have been entirely satisfied with the totality of the police grant. In particular, many hon. Members—not just Conservative Members, but Liberal Democrat and Labour Members—have expressed concern about the trend towards centralisation, to which I referred in my speech. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) took that view, followed by, among others, the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley).
The Minister rather disingenuously suggested in an intervention on the hon. Member for Lewes that by expressing concern we were against any form of centralised funds. Of course some centralised funds will be required, such as that for the DNA database. The concern that I and others have expressed is about the huge increase in centralised funds year on year.
The rural fund is only £30 million, which is small as a proportion. One can make a case for it being centralised at the moment until the Government change the distribution formula, but there is no justification for the crime fighting fund being centralised. There is no reason why that could not have been disbursed to authorities for their own purposes. The only defence of centralisation came from the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston). I accept his argument about local accountability, but if he wants to defend the Government, I suggest he read clause 7 of the Police Reform Bill, which shows just how far they want to go in controlling what the police do, and it is quite frightening to most people.
A number of Members raised the issue of wastage. The latest figures show that wastage rose by some 5 per cent. in the year to September. That is not a large figure, but it is of some concern. If we strip out the retirements, deaths, transfers and dismissals, we discover that straightforward resignations rose by 18 per cent. in that year. That shows the widespread loss of morale in the police service. Police officers do not like the way that they are being treated.
Many hon. Members have referred to the Thames valley and the cost of living allowance. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has come back into the Chamber. I maintain my view that getting rid of the housing allowance was the right way forward. If there is a problem—I am happy to accept her word and those of other hon. Members—I suggest that it can be dealt with through the cost of living allowance.
Fiona Mactaggart rose—
Mr. Paice: I shall not give way, if the hon. Lady does not mind. I want to give the Minister time to respond.
342
Addressing the cost of living allowance is exactly the course of action suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and others. My hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire, for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) referred to the importance of visible policing. There is no doubt that that has suffered seriously during the past few years. Police numbers fell dramatically in the Government's first three years in office. Of course we welcome the fact that we are now back to where we were—73 above to be precise—and in response to the accusation that I am being churlish, I welcome the extra police officers in Cambridgeshire. However, we have only got back to where we were, and have not made significant progress.
Several of my hon. Friends referred to the special constabulary. Under the Government, there has been a cataclysmic decline in the number of specials of some 40 per cent. It would be wholly wrong to lay the blame for that entirely at the Government's door. People's lifestyles have changed and they may be less willing to undertake voluntary work. However, a decline of 40 per cent. cannot be completely attributed to a gradual change in people's lifestyles in the past few years. I am disappointed that in the White Paper, which has raised its head several times in the debate, the Government did not set out any strong proposals substantially to revitalise the specials, other than making nice warm noises about the need to increase the special constabulary.
The principal issue remains that of the shift towards the council tax, and it was raised by a number of hon. Members. I wish the Minister would be straightforward with the House and say whether it is the Government's intention to shift the bulk of the cost of policing towards the council tax payer. That is what is happening. I gave figures, which hon. Members supported with figures from their own constabularies. It looks as though many authorities will be raising their council tax precept by 20 or 30 per cent. just to stand still. Others may decide not to raise it by that amount, and to face up to having to make cuts.
I come back to the Government's targets for the number of police officers. If some forces are not able to access the crime fighting fund this year because they have had to cut their recruitment and do not meet the gateway criteria, does the Minister realistically expect to meet his target of 130,000 officers by next year? If he does, will he tell the House what he expects the rise in council tax precepts to be on average for police authorities across the country? He cannot have it both ways: either council taxes will have to rise dramatically or he will not get the police officers he and all of us want by this time next year.
6.49 pm
Mr. Denham: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply. I thank the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for leaving me 10 minutes or so. I hope to deal with the main themes of the debate in that time, although I shall not be able to respond in detail to each point. I am sure that hon. Members will understand.
This has, in general, been a helpful debate, although inevitably there has been a degree of special pleading and some presentation of creatively argued cases from police authority treasurers determined to show the situation in the worst possible light.

343
A number of speakers from, I think, both sides of the House drew a contrast between the average grant increase of 2.8 per cent. and the overall spending increase of 6.1 per cent. That, as a number of other speakers made clear, is not the point. The missing amount has not been whipped away for nefarious central purposes. A substantial extra amount, over and above the grant increase, will be spent by police forces in local areas on delivering policing to communities. The crime fighting fund, the rural policing fund and the capital fund—which, as I have said, is being increased by more than 30 per cent.—will be spent in local police force areas. That alone amounts to an increase of 4.34 per cent. in England and Wales.
Mr. Cameron rose—
Mr. Denham: May I make a little progress? I gave way to every intervention earlier, and I have not much time. I will give way later if I can.
Thames Valley police have featured many times today. If we take account of the increases in the crime fighting fund, the rural policing fund and capital, they are receiving 5.18 per cent. When set against an average increase of 6.1 per cent. across the country, that is not at all bad. There is a good case for some of the central funds and central initiatives to which some Members have objected.
The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) rightly said that the public wanted more police, and wanted to see more police on the beat. I have chided the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire for the decline in police numbers set in train by the last Government in 1993, and he has chided me for the fact that it took us a couple of years to sort out the economy and enable the numbers to start rising again. The fact is, however, that without a mechanism like the crime fighting fund, which ring-fenced resources for the recruitment and salaries of additional officers, the numbers would not be going up now.
If Ministers are to be accountable for the overall number of police officers, I shall want to ensure—as will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—that there is a mechanism to translate the money we are investing into the officers that the hon. Lady and my hon. Friends want to see patrolling the streets, and providing intelligence-led policing in communities.
Mr. Paice: Is the Minister saying that if he gave the money to police authorities they could not be trusted to spend it on policemen?
Mr. Denham: I certainly believe that if we had not ring-fenced it, we would not have seen such a rapid increase in the number of police officers. I will defend that judgment, although it required a degree of central direction. As we would be held to account if the public did not benefit from seeing us head for record police numbers this spring and 130,000 officers next spring, I think we have a right to take the measures that are necessary to ensure that that happens.
The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) spoke of going out with the police and observing that they could not communicate properly because their radios did not work. That is the reason for the Airwave initiative. Our
344
police service has a history of failure to implement coherent approaches to information technology and the development of communications technologies because of a series of 43 separate, unco-ordinated decisions made by 43 separate police forces in 43 separate police authorities.
It is all very well defending, as I will, the key role of police authorities in the tripartite partnership, but if the police service in England and Wales is undermined by the inability of forces to talk to each other—if, to preserve their own safety, they cannot communicate in the event of a motorway crash on the border of two counties, or an armed incident, because their radios do not work—there must be a central national initiative, and that is what Airwave is all about. Similarly, there is no point in having a database enabling scene-of-crime samples to be checked against DNA records if half the country's police forces cannot take advantage of it.
We are talking not about some overbearing centralisation, but about an arrangement that is supported by the vast majority of chief constables and others who recognise that, while we take tremendous pride in the identity of local and community policing and policing by consent, tackling modern criminality involves issues that must be dealt with on a coherent national basis. I believe that we have the balance right in the settlement, and in the overall approach set out in a police Bill for whose Second Reading we have heard some rehearsals today.
Most Members also mentioned recruitment and retention in the south-east. Let me repeat some of what I said earlier. We realise that that is important, which is why—unlike the last Government, who abolished the housing allowance—we have presented proposals for low-cost home ownership and low-cost loan schemes. As we said in our White Paper, we want to establish a link with the NHS low-cost housing co-ordinator. I think there is scope for more partnership schemes involving housing associations and others.
As well as introducing regional allowances, we want to address such important issues. We must, however, ensure that we are doing the right things in the most effective way. We need a much better understanding of why some forces in the south-east have a much lower wastage rate than others, and why some have a much more effective recruitment rate. We must see what is good, and build on the best. I do not rule out any approach beyond that, but before saying "Here is an obvious simple solution" let us do what we are doing now. Let us work with the forces that are doing extremely well and also with those that appear to have a problem, and see what we can do.
I do not understand the reasons for this, but 60 per cent. of Thames Valley recruits come from outside the Thames valley area. The force can attract recruits, but there is a built-in tendency for people to return to their home areas. It would be interesting to know why such a high proportion are from outside; home-grown recruits would be less likely to drift away. We are determined to tackle all the issues, but I want to do that on the basis of an understanding of what is really going on.
The last Conservative Administration set in train a decline in the number of police officers that we have had to reverse. Crime doubled under that regime. The Conservatives introduced huge delays in youth courts, preventing young offenders from being brought to justice quickly. The level of resources that we are discussing now was undreamt of under that Government.

345
We have presided over a period in which crime has fallen. According to the British crime survey, last year's fall was the biggest in the survey's history, and the chance of being a victim of crime was the lowest since it began in 1981. I am in no way complacent, however. Crime levels are still too high, and there are serious problems—such as street robbery, which has been mentioned a number of times—that we are determined to tackle. Although I am pleased with what we have achieved so far, I realise that there is a great deal more to do.
Police forces and officers do a tremendous job, which is why we were happy to negotiate heads of agreement with the Police Federation that would make the vast majority of officers better off, benefiting from a fairer pay system. They deserve and will receive our support. We will reform the police service to free its time. Former chief inspector Sir David O'Dowd is leading the battle against red tape and bureaucracy. We need to give more support to police officers by investing in capital. That is why part of the capital we have announced this week will be spent on improving working conditions for police officers and visiting conditions for the public in police stations.
We want to free officers' time so they can be out in the community—not wandering the streets, but patrolling in an intelligent, targeted way to tackle antisocial behaviour and persistent offenders. We are determined to support the police better in the job that they do so well for us already. The resources that we have discussed today will enable them to do just that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2002–03 (HC533), which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.

Local Government Finance
7 pm
The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2002–03 (HC545), which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.
The subject before us today, important as it is, is just part of the means by which we establish a sound working partnership between central and local government to meet the needs of all the people served and represented by local government. Councils are in the front line, providing services to their communities. We should remember just how wide ranging those responsibilities are: the quality of the local environment that each of us experiences; education to raise standards and expectations; care of some of the most vulnerable members of our society; housing; transport; street cleaning and lighting. All those and many more depend on the work of councils.
It is Government's job to provide the framework within which councils have the incentives and opportunity to deliver high-quality services and effective community leadership. That is why our White Paper on local government set out our approach to the respective responsibilities of central and local government. We will work with the Local Government Association to clarify what Government can expect from local government, and vice versa.
We will establish a national framework of standards and accountability for the delivery of high-quality services. In some areas, there will need to be agreed national minimum standards, with local flexibility on how those are delivered—and, we hope, exceeded. In other areas, particularly where councils have a proven track record of high-quality performance, we will give them a freer hand to determine and to deliver priorities locally.
We will help all councils by cutting red tape, reducing central prescription and increasing the support that they receive to improve their overall performance. There will be rewards for the best performers and carefully targeted measures to tackle poor performance.
Simon Hughes: Can the Minister deal with an issue that follows directly on from the point about performance? My borough, which he knows well, has the largest publicly owned housing stock of any in London—it has about 50,000 properties. A lot of that needs capital investment. How much do the needs criteria—there may, for example, have been a stock assessment—overrule performance criteria? If the treatment of a council is always going to be governed by its performance historically, it may never get the money that it needs.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman raises important issues that go deep into the performance management system that we are introducing. I shall not detain the House too long by describing that because it is only tangential to the report before the House, but may I explain the three main elements of the performance assessment? First, best value performance indicators; secondly, the inspections carried out by the housing inspectorate of the performance of specific elements in the housing service; thirdly, an overall corporate

347
assessment of the authority's ability to cope with the many corporate pressures that it faces. That will be handled by the Audit Commission, independent of Government. The commission will come to a judgment, based on that basket of indicators, of the overall performance of the authority.
The hon. Gentleman specifically raised the subject of housing. He will know that we have made very substantial increases in the capital allocations available to local authorities for the renovation and improvement of existing stock. I appreciate that in an area such as his, which has a huge backlog of poor-condition property, there is a need to look creatively at additional means of attracting finance. I am sorry that, at the Aylesbury estate and elsewhere, opportunities for raising substantial additional sums have not turned out to be feasible because of tenant opposition, but I hope that the authority and tenants in the area will continue to work constructively to find ways of levering in additional finance, on top of that which the Government have already contributed to the authority.
Simon Hughes: That is very helpful. I pick up the last point. We have had a vote on the Aylesbury estate, a very large estate. We are facing decisions on the Tabard Garden estate, another big estate, and possibly others around the Elephant and Castle. Can the Minister give an assurance that, in terms of meeting the need, carrying out the repairs and so on, no disadvantage will follow from a specific decision by tenants either to stay with the local authority or to transfer to another landlord? Will he confirm that there will be no prejudice in terms of money coming in if they decide to remain local authority tenants?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is tempting both me and the House by moving from the subject of this particular debate—the local government finance report—to the issue of housing finance, which is separate, but clearly if the option of additional private finance to support the public money already offered by the Government—we had made some substantial offers in relation to the Aylesbury estate—were turned down, I could not guarantee that alternative sums would be available for Southwark in addition to the public finance, but we certainly do not wish to penalise areas that choose to retain the housing under local authority control. We have always believed that there should be options for tenants, and that tenants should decide in their best interests, but clearly some of those options will have greater financial potential than others. That is the nature of the operation.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I apologise for intervening immediately after the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) but the point is pertinent because the Minister is raising the question of performance. I know that he sets great store by the performance of local authorities, as indeed we all do. I am extremely concerned about the position with regard to school places in Norfolk, which has certainly had increases in funding. Of Norfolk's 52 secondary schools, only 22 can take extra pupils at the moment. That has a knock-on effect on every aspect of Norfolk life. I draw that to the Minister's attention and
348
ask him to look into how that situation, which is unparalleled in my 30 years' experience, could possibly have arisen.
Mr. Raynsford: The specific issue of Norfolk is obviously important. The right hon. Lady will be aware that the grant to Norfolk has increased by 6.8 per cent., which recognises the needs of the area. I have no doubt that my colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills will be only too pleased to deal with the specific point that she has raised. I will ensure that it is passed on to them. She will appreciate that, as it is a specifically educational point, it is ultimately their responsibility. I shall ensure that she receives an answer from them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I would like to make a little progress because literally only one sentence of my speech has related to the local government finance report. I have been happy to take questions in relation to education and housing, but I would like to make a little progress and I will then give way.
Over the past five years, we have been tackling a backlog of under-investment and inadequate general revenue funding. For 2002–03, total revenue support from Government will amount to £47.4 billion, an increase of £3.3 billion, or 7.5 per cent. on this year. The general grant formula distributes £40.3 billion of that, including the police grant. which the House has just debated. Excluding police grant, the remaining formula grant for 2002–03 will total £36.5 billion, an increase of £1.8 billion or 5.3 per cent. on the current year. Those are very substantial increases at a time when underlying inflation is running at under 2 per cent.
During consultation, local authorities impressed upon us that they still face financial problems this year, particularly in the case of social services. We considered those points and we will continue to discuss the needs of social services authorities with representatives of local government. We have already demonstrated our willingness to respond to the evidence presented by social services authorities in the initiative agreed late last year by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and the Secretary of State for Health to respond to bed-blocking pressures.
Mrs. Angela Browning: On social services, the Minister will be aware of the case made by Devon county council. The high number of retired people in Devon has created a problem with its social services budget. I hope that the formula that the Government intend to change in time for the following year will equalise the per capita allowance for retired people, because there is a considerable differential. Devon receives a much lower rate than other parts of the country, and we are also disadvantaged in terms of sparsity. On sparsity and the way the formula for retired people is calculated, will the Government seek to achieve equalisation?
Mr. Raynsford: I will discuss a little later our proposals for changing the standard spending assessment formula in future years, but the hon. Lady will recognise that we are operating the same methodology this year as in previous years. She will be pleased to learn that Devon

349
county council has received a 6.6 per cent. increase in Government grant. That is a substantial increase that is well ahead of inflation, and compares favourably with that received by many other county councils, so this year's settlement in no way disadvantages Devon. I accept, however, that there may be issues relating to the construction of the SSA formula—of course, it was devised when the hon. Lady's party was in government—that we will need to address in our review in the coming year. However, as I said, so far as this settlement is concerned, Devon has not been disadvantaged.
Mr. David Clelland: Despite the generosity of this year's settlement when compared with those of the previous Conservative Government, several points have been made about the general settlement. Reference was made to the crisis in social services, but we should also remember the unfairness of the population-based calculation, anomalies in education grants and the rules governing them, and late changes to the area cost adjustment, all of which impact heavily not only on metropolitan authorities in general, but on Gateshead council in particular. Has my right hon. Friend any good news to impart in that regard?
Mr. Raynsford: I have a number of items of good news to impart, including the future review of the SSA formula, to which I have already referred. I recognise that areas with declining populations have particular problems, and that savings cannot always immediately be made to take account of such decline. There is a difficulty, in that areas that face extra pressures because of population increases naturally feel such pressures immediately, and want compensation as soon as possible. Given that the impact of such population increases is immediate, devising a system that allows a time-lag before the consequences of population decline are felt clearly involves a funding gap, which must be filled by some means or other. We understand the problem and we will address it in the review, but there is no instant and easy solution to it.
With regard to the area cost adjustment, in that and every other aspect of the settlement we are committed to using the most up-to-date and accurate information. Last autumn, it became clear to us that figures published by the Office for National Statistics in July, which were based on data from the new earnings survey, did not give an accurate picture of the changes, because a significant proportion of the sample was omitted by mistake. When, late in the process, the error came to light, we felt it only right and proper that the figures be adjusted to take account of the correct data. Otherwise, we would have knowingly proceeded on an incorrect basis. We have made similar late adjustments in relation to a number of other factors, and as part of the settlement it is always our policy to implement the most recent, up-to-date and accurate data that we can.
Mr. Paul Burstow: The Minister will know that the gap between council spending on social services, and the spending that is necessary according to the Government's SSA, has widened in the past 10 years to 12 per cent. What advice can he give to his Labour colleagues who serve on my local authority in the London
350
borough of Sutton? Their concern is that, as a result of the settlement, the gap has widened to 13.5 per cent. Will that gap be closed through an increase in charges or in council tax, or will there be sufficient grant? It is clear that, at the moment, the grant is insufficient.
Mr. Raynsford: As I thought I had acknowledged, we recognise that there are very real pressures on social services, and we have been discussing them for some time with social services departments and authorities, and with our colleagues in the Department of Health. I mentioned the specific additional finance, some £300 million in total, that was made available last autumn—the bulk of it will take effect in the coming year—to help relieve bed-blocking pressures. We have made it clear that in our view the SSA formula, which has fallen behind in a number of ways, is not an accurate reflection of the current position. It has become increasingly unrealistic in terms of actual spending patterns, and we need to change it. That is why we will conduct an extremely thorough review to try to put in place a better formula with effect from next year.
I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it would have been wrong to rush forward with an inevitably defective stop-gap measure that required further amendment. It is clear that local government should not have to operate according to formulae that change year on year. We need more certainty, and the ability to plan ahead with reasonable confidence in the likely level of support. Obviously, certain variations will be needed to reflect changes in demography, but constant changes in methodology are simply dispiriting to those who must plan ahead.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The first Standing Committee of which I was a member considered what became the Local Government Finance Act 1987, which introduced the poll tax and the standard spending assessment. We got rid of one of them, and thankfully we are now able to get rid of the other. Will the consequences of that Act—it has resulted in cumulative loss in many areas, but a cumulative bonanza in various others—be taken into account? The position of authorities such as Derbyshire, which were deliberately targeted by that legislation, needs to be corrected.
Mr. Raynsford: We are well aware of the problems that my hon. Friend and his Derbyshire colleagues have encountered. I hope that he agrees that this year's settlement, which, I suspect, gives Derbyshire a more substantial increase than was initially expected, has gone some way towards redressing the balance. Of course, he will recognise that we cannot overcome the legacy of many years of inappropriate calculations at one fell swoop. However, through settlements agreed in the past five years, we are seeking to increase local government resources in general and to redress the balance. During the coming year's review of the SSA formula, we will try to establish a proper and fair basis for the future. There is a difficulty, however—I will discuss it later—in that everyone expects to do better out of the review. It is the nature of politics that we are all conscious of the defects

351
of the settlement arrangements and the formula as they impact on our own authorities. Everyone expects that those defects will be put right, and that the settlement will benefit them in future years.
Although I have many abilities, I cannot perform magic—the new arrangement cannot magically improve the allocations to every local authority. We will try to devise a system that is fairer, better and above all more comprehensible than the current one. One iniquity of the current scheme is that it is virtually impossible for anyone other than a local government finance anorak to understand how the system works.
Mrs. Theresa May: On the SSA review, will the Minister clarify one point for hon. Members' benefit? In his pre-Christmas statement on the local government settlement, the Secretary of State said that the revised SSA would come into force from the 2003–04 financial year. If the review to which the Minister has referred takes a whole year, the new SSA will not be available in time for the 2003–
Mr. Raynsford: I am very happy to put the hon. Lady's mind at rest. The review is already progressing, and will be completed in the course of the coming year so that it can be implemented from the start of the financial year 2003–04. This time next year, therefore, we will be debating a different formula—a different basis for allocation—that will apply from 2003–04.
However, this is a complex matter. The hon. Lady will be well aware of the complexities involved. The change will take time, and it will be several months into the year before we are in a position even to begin to consult about the overall framework.
Mr. Clive Betts rose—
Ms Julia Drown rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way again when I have completed this response.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) will appreciate that a number of separate components are involved, such as education, social services, the environmental, protective and cultural services block, or whatever. Each of those components has to be satisfactory to the people concerned, and there must be consistency when they are put together. Account must also be taken of the overall impact. All that has to be done in an intelligent way, and models must be designed to determine the consequences. In that way, it is possible to avoid the unforeseen consequences of what might appear, on the surface, to be an entirely rational approach.
The process is complex, and will take time. We are not going to rush it. That is why, as I indicated in my response to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), we did not make a change this year. Any such change would have been rushed, and we did not consider that to be satisfactory.
Mr. Betts:I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, as I want to return to the issue of social services, mentioned by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). The Government are looking at the problems facing local authorities, but those authorities
352
still have choices. Will my right hon. Friend comment on—and join me in criticising—the actions of the Liberal Democrat council in Sheffield? Over the past two years, it has managed to find an extra £1 million for its corporate publicity budget, and it has just increased senior executive officers' salaries by 30 per cent. However, when an elderly person who cannot get in and out of the bath wants a shower to be installed instead, help with the necessary adaptation is refused if that person can manage to have a strip wash. Those are the Liberal Democrat priorities in Sheffield.
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point about the importance of local government focusing on delivering services to people in need. Certainly, the whole purpose of our performance assessment and management framework is to put real pressure on local authorities to deliver services and not spend money on items of lesser priority. When that performance management and assessment system is introduced, I hope that my hon. Friend finds that it has a desirable effect. We are conscious that the settlement gives an increase for social services, but we are clearly aware of the pressures, as I said. We will keep the matter under review.
As hon. Members will recall, 2002–03 is the last year in which we will use the system of standard spending assessments. I have already said something about the changes that we intend to make in the calculations for future years.
A number of fire authorities, and honourable Members, have made representations about the continued use of the fire calls indicator in the SSA formula this year. We recognise that it is a perverse incentive, which penalises authorities that do effective fire prevention work, and it will not be part of the new grant formula. However, to be fair to all authorities, we cannot make exceptions here or there to the decision that we rule out changes in the methodology. That decision also covers the suggestion that we use data on fire calls differently by averaging over a longer period.
On 4 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced our intention that, for 2002–03, all authorities would receive a grant increase at least matching inflation. That increase, and other comparisons that I shall make, are on a like-for-like basis.
In line with the Government's priorities, authorities with education and social services responsibilities will receive at least 4 per cent.—up from 3.2 per cent. last year. I can confirm today that we will put some £52 million of new money into revenue support grant, so that-as was not the case in 2001–02—no authority in this group below the ceiling will have its increase reduced to pay for the floor.
It became clear in consultation that the fully adjusted basis that we had used to make like-for-like comparisons from one year to the next was not regarded as fair by shire district councils. That was because the main adjustment was in respect of education, a service that shire districts do not, of course, provide.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House on 18 December, we therefore agreed to introduce an alternative baseline for 2001–02 that, in effect, only adjusts for transfers of service for which shire districts are responsible. In order to guarantee a minimum 2.3 per cent. increase for all shire districts, on a like-for-like basis,

353
we will give each district whichever increase is the greater for it: 2.3 per cent. on the original baseline, or 2.3 per cent. on the alternative. The grant allocations now proposed for shire districts take full account of that guarantee.
Following the close of consultation, we have decided to extend that guarantee to police and fire authorities. Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, we have agreed to put extra resources into the settlement to fund that guarantee, without imposing an unduly high scaling factor on grant increases for authorities above the floor.
As a result of representations made in consultation, we have also decided to change the way in which adjustments to the base year were made for the transfer of regulation and inspection functions from social services departments to the new National Care Standards Commission. The adjustments do not now take account of new money transferred from SSAs to the commission. That will give authorities at the floor or ceiling a higher base position, and thus higher cash increases. Again, we have ensured that other authorities do not lose as a result. Taking those initiatives together, the Government have put some £73 million of new money into the settlement to support the cost of floor increases for all authorities.
I confirm that I intend to promote capital investment by excepting from the floor and ceiling limits grant increases that result from new capital allocations. I also confirm that, where grant increases for authorities that are neither at the floor or the ceiling are scaled back to help pay for the floor, this will only apply to that part of the grant increase above the floor. That should help solve the problem that was characterised last year as
"the nearly poor paying for the really poor".
Mr. Steve Webb: According to some measures, such as primary SSA, my authority of South Gloucestershire is at the bottom, so we hope that any new formula will move us in the right direction. However, our nightmare is that the new formula will be more generous but that it will be phased in through tight ceilings over many years. My constituents are angry and feel a sense of injustice after years of unfair funding, and their fear is that that unfairness will continue for years. Can the Minister offer my constituents any assurance that the new system, where it addresses long-standing injustices, will not be phased in so slowly that those injustices effectively persist?
Mr. Raynsford: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we have been able to give Gloucestershire an increase this year of 6.9 per cent.
Mr. Webb: That is not correct.
Mr. Raynsford: I was referring to the county of Gloucestershire. However, if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the district council—
Mr. Webb: The unitary council.
Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry, I meant the hon. Gentleman's unitary council. I shall refer to that unitary
354
council separately, when I can find the right page. The hon. Gentleman will know what a nightmare it is constantly to be looking for the respective figures for individual authorities. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we recognise that the new formula will cause there to be both gainers and losers. I made that clear in response to an earlier intervention. It would be only fair, therefore, to continue the floors and ceilings framework, as that will prevent local authorities—especially those facing potentially large losses—from facing excessive changes as well. It would be quite unreasonable for authorities in that position to have to deal with both matters at one fell swoop. That is why we want to ensure the continuation of a floor and ceiling framework. I think that most people would regard that as fair.
Mr. David Kidney: My right hon. Friend the Minister does not get many bouquets at the Dispatch Box, but he deserves to be congratulated on these refinements to the floor and ceiling framework. After all, the concept was introduced for the first time only this time last year.
However, will my right hon. Friend say what proportion of this year's distribution of revenue support grant will be held back by Departments for ring-fenced grant? Have central and local government agreed a target for a smaller proportion in future years?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend offered some kind words to begin with, then threw a dart. We recognise that there is real concern in local government about the increase in ring fencing. There are good reasons for ring fencing in certain circumstances, when there are no other means of ensuring that certain outcomes—hugely important, and regarded as national priorities—can be delivered. However, we believe that circumstances have now reached a point where it is necessary to rein back on ring fencing. We made clear our commitment to do that in the White Paper. In the course of the coming spending review, we will obviously be looking to reach agreement with our colleagues in other Departments on an appropriate framework for the future. That framework will ensure that, although the benefits of ring fencing are not lost, local authorities will be able to expect to benefit from the greater flexibility that will arise when a greater proportion of grant is available through general grant, rather than ring-fenced grant.
Mr. Don FosterWould it not be helpful if the Minister answered the question asked by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney)? I suggest that his answer might be that the proportion of total Government grant going to local councils that is ring-fenced has increased from 5 per cent., when the Government came to power, to nearly 15 per cent. today.
Mr. Raynsford: I do not want to quibble with the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he exaggerates slightly; the figure is probably nearer 14 per cent. However, I will not hold that against him.
I have flicked through my papers and can reassure the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that the increase for South Gloucestershire, which I am sure that he will welcome, is 6.7 per cent., almost exactly the same as for the county of Gloucestershire, which has 6.9 per cent.
Ms Drown: I represent an authority that hopes to gain by the new formula, and refer my right hon. Friend to

355
next year's settlement. Is he aware of the frustration of some of the lowest funded authorities, such as Swindon, which face more challenges than many other authorities in terms of raising standards in education and social services? However, an unfair formula distribution is further exacerbated in that Swindon's increase has been less than the average. We are looking at some difficult choices locally, and I would be grateful for my right hon. Friend's assurance that he will continue to work with the council to ensure that valued services, particularly in education and social services, will be preserved as the council goes through a difficult round of decision making.
Mr. Raynsford: We have ensured, through the floors and ceilings mechanism, that every local authority has received an increase this year that at least matches that of inflation. No authority will have to cope with an increase that is less than inflation, and most benefit from substantially larger increases than that.
We shall review the system in the coming year. As part of that review, it will be our objective to ensure that the new framework is fairer and reflects the circumstances that lead to real needs for spend for all authorities. I hope that my hon. Friend can take comfort from that. I appreciate that in certain cases, where there have been changes as a result of local government reorganisation, the patterns of spend have not necessarily fully reflected the need to spend. It is our wish, through the review of standard spending assessments, to have a better framework for the future.
With the good grant increases that we have provided this year and the prospect of stable grant settlements, all authorities should be able to deliver improvements to public services while setting reasonable council tax increases. This year, we have made changes to what must be shown on council tax bills. [Interruption.] Liberal Democrat Members seem to think this a matter for humour. Their electorate will not find it humorous if their authorities impose unreasonably large council tax increases when there has been an overall 7.5 per cent. increase—three times the rate of inflation—in Government grant to local authorities. We expect local authorities to make full use of the generous settlement that I am announcing this evening and to ensure that they do not impose unreasonable increases in council tax on their council tax payers.
Mr. Don Foster: I do not find the situation humorous. What I found humorous were the shakes of the head from many Labour Members in response to the Minister's statement that councils will be able to deliver improved services as a result of this settlement. On the increases in council tax, what is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the average increase that is likely to result from today's settlement?
Mr. Raynsford: This is a matter for local authorities rather than for the Government. It is not for me to make an estimate. I hope that local authorities will discuss this with their council tax payers and come to a sensible and appropriate conclusion.
There is already evidence that a number of authorities are making decisions showing their awareness of the need to be moderate in their demands. Liverpool city council, for example—a Liberal Democrat-controlled council—has indicated that it does not expect to increase its council
356
tax at all. I welcome that. I wish that a number of other Liberal Democrat councils that are talking about large increases would follow suit. A number of other authorities have indicated to us the likelihood of modest increases. The treasurers of the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities predict an average increase of some 4.5 per cent.
I put it to the House that given a settlement of 7.5 per cent. in increased grant, it should be possible for all authorities to budget for the coming year with moderate increases. I do not welcome the alarmist figures that have been put around by some commentators and some hon. Members, nor the behaviour of one or two local authorities which appear to be stoking up unreasonable expectations. I cite only the Mayor of London, whose proposed 34 per cent. increase in budget rightly aroused real concern among members of the Greater London Assembly, who have sought to scale down that figure. I welcome moves to achieve a more reasonable settlement in London.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I note what my right hon. Friend says. Durham county council is a very well run and moderate council, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who represents Sedgefield, also knows. Durham is facing a critical situation this year because of having one of the lowest settlements of the shire counties. Some £2.7 million has been taken away or lost because the education support grant received last year is not being provided this year, and the council faces imposing an increase in council tax of between 10 and 17 per cent.
Mr. Raynsford: I am aware of the pressures faced by Durham county council. My hon. Friend has spoken to me about this and I have responded by looking at a number of issues relating to Durham county. Under the settlement for Durham the overall increase of 5.6 per cent. is more than double the rate of inflation. Durham has also benefited from a number of initiatives, such as the one that I referred to earlier on bed blocking. That has secured an additional £1.8 million for Durham county.
I do not underestimate the pressures on social services. I acknowledged those when meeting my hon. Friend and in my earlier contributions to the House. I hope that when Durham county comes to fix its council tax for the coming year, it will have regard not just to the need to maintain its services but to economy and to what it is reasonable to expect council tax payers to contribute.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Raynsford:: I will give way for the last time. I really must make progress.
Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the right on. Gentleman for giving way. He is being uncharacteristically coy about giving a prediction for council tax increases in the coming year. Can he confirm that the council tax increase at standard spending, which is the increase if a council spends at standard spending next year and is doing so this year, will be more than twice the rate of inflation? Why is he so coy about mentioning that in public?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman, who has been a Minister, will know that there is no question of a standard

357
increase in council tax for an authority spending at standard spending. The reality of the system, as he will know, is that there are huge variations between actual patterns of spend and SSA. That is one of the reasons that we are conducting a review of SSA. For authorities that are receiving an increase in grant which averages 7.5 per cent, there is no reason why unreasonably large council tax demands should be made. We expect authorities to approach this in the sensible way that a number are already doing, and I have highlighted one or two examples. I hope that all authorities will be prudent, because the public do not expect unreasonable demands to be made in council tax.
To encourage this, we have made changes in the current year to what must be shown on council tax bills. Voters will see clearly which of their councils are responsible for any increase in council tax that they are required to pay. Bills will show clearly how much different tiers of authority are charging. They will also show how much in percentage terms each tier has increased its part of the council tax compared with the previous year. Any substantial increases will therefore show up clearly on bills. If some councils set substantial increases, their council tax payers and local electorate will have every reason to question their council's decision.
Although we have reserve capping powers, the Government do not operate a system of crude and universal pre-announced capping—unlike the previous Government. Decisions on council tax are primarily for local authorities to take after consulting their local electorate and tax payers. Given this very good grant settlement, councils will find it hard to justify any unreasonable increases.
The Government have taken the necessary steps to set up a proper framework for partnership between local government and central Government. We have listened to the points made to us in consultation and we have responded. The local government settlement that I have outlined continues the trend under the Government of steady and substantial investment in local government and in the services that it provides, and I commend the motion to the House.
7.40 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: We have heard the same record playing this year as in each of the past four years of the Labour Government, and it is is getting rather worn and thin. Every year, Ministers promise a generous settlement for local authorities and every year they say that there is no reason for high council tax rises; but every year council tax has risen by three times the rate of inflation—not just this year or last year, but in each year that the Labour Government have been in office.
In December, the Secretary of State claimed that there would be an increase in Government grant and business rate of 7.4 per cent. He said that there was no reason why we should see large increases in council tax next year.
Last year, the Government announced a 6.7 per cent. increase in revenue support. The then Minister for Local Government, the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), pledged:
"I am confident that councils will be able to implement reasonable council tax increases, lower than last year's".—[Official Report, 27 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 659.].
358
She used the same word that the Minister has used this year: "reasonable". Despite that, in 2001–02 the average council tax in England rose by 6.4 per cent. —three times the rate of inflation.
I noticed with interest that the Minister ducked the question put by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) as to the right hon. Gentleman's predictions for council tax rises in the coming year. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman some help. It comes from one of his Labour colleagues—Mr. David Wilcox, the secretary of the county councils Labour group. He wrote to one of his colleagues:
"Coming local elections are causing some concern with Labour authorities that perhaps should be going for increases of around 10% but that consider they may have to cut the rise back in an election year.
So far the highest proposed rate rise that I have been notified of comes from a jointly controlled council and is at 12%, although it could come down below 10% at the end of the day."
Then comes the killer punchline:
"At this moment 9.9% feels like safe ground with 8.9% looking attractive."
That was a letter from the Minister's colleague.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman referred to a gramophone record at the start of his speech. Does he not think that we are hearing exactly the same record that he played yesterday in the House? Does he recall that when he quoted the same letter I told him that I regarded that figure of 9.9 per cent. as unreasonable? Does he acknowledge that that is the Government's position?
Mr. Moss: Making the same point twice does not undermine the fact that it is a good point. If the Minister thinks that the figure is unreasonable, perhaps he should take issue with some of the Labour-controlled county councils that seriously fear they will have to come up with council tax increases of below 10 per cent.
The Government seem genuinely perplexed that, despite their trumpeting of the above-inflation increase in grant that they have given every year, there have been even larger increases in council tax. Is that because councils have been inefficient or profligate? Not so, says the evidence. During the past four years, the majority of councils, of all political persuasions, have experienced great difficulty in maintaining a standstill on services, let alone funding real improvements to those services.
In the equivalent debate last year, complaints about the settlement came raining down from the Labour Benches on the then Minister. I do not see much difference in this evening's debate. The explanation for the large increases cannot lie with inflation, which has averaged about 2 per cent. over the relevant period. Nor do we believe that the overall total settlement figure is inadequate. At 7.4 per cent. it is, as the Minister said, well above inflation.
The answer to the conundrum lies in the double whammy imposed on local authorities by the Government and by the Minister's Department. On one hand, they have increased the regulations and burdens on councils, while on the other they have fiddled with the funding formula, put up taxes that directly affect local authorities' costs and altered the way that grant is distributed so that less money—not more—is going to front-line basic services.
Let us examine those extra costs and burdens, which have risen far faster than Government funding.
Mr. Clelland: I, too, take issue with the Minister on some of the points he made about the 7.3 per cent. average

359
increase, because local authorities such as Gateshead are receiving only 5 per cent. which will cause them difficulty. However, does the hon. Gentleman realise that during the first three years of the Labour Government the average increase in grant to Gateshead council was about 4.5 per cent? In the last three years of the Conservative Government, the increase was 0.7 per cent. In those circumstances, who does he recommend that the people of Gateshead vote for?
Mr. Moss: If the people of Gateshead are prepared to tolerate yearly council tax increases of three times the rate of inflation, I suggest that they may not be voting for the wrong party.
In relation to the extra costs and burdens, there is the real impact of the Government's stealth taxes. Advance corporation tax has increased the cost of providing pensions. The hidden iceberg of costs for local government pensions is estimated at £300 million each year.
Fuel tax rises have increased transport costs for councils, and the Government's insistence on bumping up landfill tax each year without a commensurate reduction in other taxes to compensate is causing councils a real problem. Local councils paid out £163 million in 1998–99, and by 2004 it is estimated that landfill tax will rise to £348 million a year.
Another obvious burden is that of best value. That has led to an excessively bureaucratic centralising regime and has proved itself not only incredibly complicated but—even worse—extremely expensive for councils to operate.
The Government would argue that they have recognised those increased costs, but the allocation of £40 million for central best value administration falls woefully short of the real costs to councils. The Local Government Association has complained that it costs an extra £175 million more than the allocated amount.
Criticism of best value does not come only from those on the Conservative Benches. In Wales, the National Assembly decided to abolish the regime. Labour Finance Minister, Edwina Hart, conceded that the system was "terribly bureaucratic". The Labour leader of the Welsh Local Government Association, Sir Harry Jones, stated that councils were spending more time on process than on actual service delivery.
The Government recognised that they have problems with best value. They could hardly have been unaware of the howls of protest coming from the councils, but their response—to hold a review—is pathetically inadequate. They should admit their error and scrap this absurd regime at the earliest opportunity. We would.
The list of new obligations does not end there. After the recent highly damaging floods, the costs to councils were not remotely covered by the emergency grants from the Government. Only this week, in the Civil Defence (Grant) Bill, the Government proposed restricting by 25 per cent. contingency and emergency planning expenditure in order to reduce their own liabilities. In the wake of 11 September, there are likely to be higher—not lower—costs for local government and the fire authorities.
360
On asylum funding, there is still a shortfall between the costs to councils and the Government's grant aid. Last year, the Association of London Government stated:
"Government grants made no provision for the education and social care costs of supporting asylum seekers in the year 2000–01. This is a problem because data lag means that authorities can wait up to two years before the asylum seeking child appears in the SSA formula for funding."
Additional costs are incurred when councils switch to the new cabinet system from the former committee system. For example, last year Cheshire county council said that the switch would cost it £660,000 a year.
Finally, on waste and recycling, we have the ridiculous situation whereby, from this January, fridges will be subject to the ozone depleting substances regulation, with very little extra grant being made available. The most ludicrous situation of all is that there is as yet no facility in this country that can do the necessary disposal. The Government must have known that that directive would be implemented this year. Why was there such woeful preparation and why is there such inadequate funding? The Government's offer of just £6 million is laughable. The LGA has estimated the total cost to local authorities to be some £60 million, so the legacy of the Government's mismanagement of the issue will be mountains of rusting fridges littering our landscape for years to come.
Perhaps the key area of budgetary pressure, for those councils tasked with the responsibility, is that of personal social services. There is real concern that the resources have not increased by any more than the forecast totals of 5.4 per cent. in the 2000 spending review.
Mr. Betts: The hon. Gentleman has just listed a catalogue of problems facing local government and the extra costs that he believes that local authorities have. Would he like to say by how much the grant to local authorities should be increased in excess of what the Government have recommended?
Mr. Moss: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say some moments ago that we have no argument with the total level of funding at a 7.4 per cent. increase, which is generous in relation to inflation. I am arguing that the Labour Government have burdened councils with all sorts of extra regulations and red tape and then not given them the money to deliver. That is the issue.
I return to the subject of personal social services. Why have the Government stayed with those outdated figures when all the evidence points to severe and increasing demand for children's services and care for the elderly? The Government know that local authorities are already spending more than £1 billion over the total SSA to try to meet those increasing demands. To ignore the facts, to ignore the crisis, is to condemn thousands of the most vulnerable people in our society to a life of misery.
"The present system is not working. Older people are suffering and will continue to suffer as a consequence. They deserve better."
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has just said, in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), that he has no quibble with the overall level of grant that we are proposing. How does he reconcile that with his latest comment—that he regards the social services grant increases as inadequate?
Mr. Moss: The Minister must be patient. I shall come to that later. There was last year, and has been promised

361
this year, £200 million from the health budget to help alleviate bed blocking. That is a source of money that a Conservative Government could certainly turn to, as the present Government have turned to it, so there is no magic in all that.
The words that I just used about social services were quoted from the report of an inquiry, chaired by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). He recently chaired an independent commission of inquiry into social services in Birmingham. The report also concludes that:
"Birmingham's problems are not unique. There is national underfunding of social services—especially the services for older people. However it is inescapable that it"—
the council—
"either finds the money or reduces the service it provides. Significant extra funding must be made available for Social Services as a whole … the identification of funding on a suitable scale is largely the responsibility of Central Government."
Mr. Chope: Does my hon. Friend agree that what matters is not just the overall level of funding for social services but the way in which it is distributed? Will he express some sympathy for the people of Dorset, where there are 88,000 citizens aged over 65 and the amount of funding for social services per person over 65 is £183 less than the national average? Does he agree that that is totally unacceptable?
Mr. Moss: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an important point.
The crisis in social services is of the Government's own making. Where is the sense in formulating ever more regulations for the nursing and residential home sector when private homes are closing down at a rate of knots? There are now some 47,000 fewer care beds than there were in 1997. That is a scandalous record, brought about by an incompetent Government. There appears to be little or no communication between the key Departments that have an input into this problem. At Prime Minister's questions, the PM himself seems totally oblivious to the time bomb that is ticking away under his nose.
Mr. Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend has just mentioned Prime Minister's questions and the Prime Minister's complacent answer when attention was drawn to the crisis in the East Kent hospitals at the moment. Those problems are heavily driven by the loss of more than a quarter of our nursing home beds over the past three years.
Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend makes my point for me.
Those, then, are the key cost pressures for local government. Now let us take a look at the funding pressures.
In 1998, the Labour Government altered the methodology by which the revenue support grant was to be distributed. Those changes are still in place. They perpetuate the initial inequalities and unfairness and they penalise the better-managed councils.
Over the lifetime of the last Parliament, the shire counties lost an estimated £700 million in grant funding, while London lost £450 million. We are not arguing that
362
the shire counties have not received any grant increases; rather, we are arguing that they would have received more grant if the funding formula had not been changed.
In the current settlement, the Government have also perpetuated the flawed funding system of floors and ceilings in their grant allocation. What is the point of having an elaborate system of SSAs, dependent on the collection and appraisal of huge quantities of data, if that exercise is subsequently ignored because the Government do not like the outcomes?
Mr. Raynsford: If I give the hon. Gentleman the figures of the cumulative increase in standard spending assessment for London, metropolitan areas and shire areas in the course of the lifetime of Labour Governments and compare it with the Conservative Government, he might find those figures instructive. Over the past four years, there have been year-on-year increases of 4.4 per cent. for London, 4.3 per cent. for metropolitan areas and 4.6 per cent. for shire areas. The respective figures during the Conservative Government's period of office from 1994–95 to 1997–98 were 0.6 per cent., 1.3 per cent. and 1.8 per cent. respectively. All categories—shire, metropolitan and London—have done very much better under the Labour Governments.
Mr. Moss rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. There have been several long interventions in the debate. A number of hon. Members are very anxious to speak and unless interventions are briefer, or perhaps non-existent for a while, a lot of hon. Members will be very disappointed.
Mr. Moss: A wink is as good as a nod, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Moss: I shall now return to the floors and ceilings issue. What could be more illogical or perverse than to have poor councils coughing up some of their grant to help even poorer councils? Only the present Government could come up with the philosophy of robbing Paul to pay Paul.
The unfairness of that redistribution is felt particularly by those councils in the south-east planning region that enjoy the area cost adjustment. Many of these have seen their grant reduced even though the SSA calculations were based on real need. If that is the Government's answer to the reform of the area cost adjustment, they should come clean and tell us. Reform, I would remind the House, was promised by the Prime Minister in Cambridge in the run-up to the 1997 general election. Five years later, we are still waiting—yet another example of a broken promise.
One of the most detrimental changes to local government that the Labour Government have made is that of the switch since 1997–98 from block grants to specific grants. As well as treating local councils as nothing more than mere agents of central Government, that practice actually takes money away from basic front-line services.

363
Non-police specific grants have increased from 4 per cent. in 1997–98 to over 14 per cent. in the current settlement. Not only are these specific grants unobtainable by certain councils but they frequently involve a complex bidding and allocation mechanism. That adds to the bureaucracy, and costs councils time and money.
The LGA is concerned about that increase in the proportion of resources devoted to ring-fenced funding, particularly for education and social services. Is not the planned increase in specific grants this year perverse in view of the Government's conclusion in their recent White Paper that the growth of ring fencing is "excessive" and that
"it threatens to erode local decision-making responsibility, limit authorities's ability to tackle environmental priorities and to increase council tax levels."
In education, for example, specific grants have increased so much in the current settlement—up from £2.6 billion to £3.7 million—that out of the 8.8 per cent. overall increase for education, only 5.7 per cent. has actually gone to the education SSA increase. Given the proposed increases in teachers' pay, there is precious little new money available in those figures for service improvements above inflation. The teachers' pay increase will cost local authorities a further £240 million above the 2.5 per cent. provision for pay increases in the 2000 spending review. Increases in superannuation contributions will cost an extra £140 million.
Finally on education, there is the fiddle of the funding transfer from post-16 education to the Learning and Skills Council. Many councils and the LGA believe that too much has been transferred out of the revenue support grant total because of an overestimate in the growth of sixth form numbers. The £16.8 million post-16 budget support grant does not compensate in full for that loss.
So what is the outcome of this misdirected and incompetent double whammy of extra burdens on the one hand and fiddled funding on the other? Every year, council tax has soared by three times the rate of inflation, despite the Prime Minister's promise before the 1997 election that he had no plans to increase tax at all. Over the past four years, council tax has risen by £212 on band D homes—equivalent to a 30.7 per cent. increase.
At least this year the Government have come clean and planned for that increase three times above the rate of inflation. In the small print of the November 2000 pre-Budget report, council tax receipts across Britain are budgeted to rise from £14.8 billion to £15.8 billion—a 6.7 per cent. increase. Of course, as we know, inflation is predicted at 2 per cent. in that report. Actual increases are likely to be higher in the shire counties, as I have already mentioned in referring to the letter from the secretary of the Labour group.
That hike in council tax—it is likely to break the £1,000 barrier significantly for band D homes for the first time—is one of Labour's more effective and less obvious stealth taxes, but it hits the most vulnerable in society disproportionately. In fact, it is a form of regressive taxation—something the Labour party in opposition said it would never countenance.
Let us consider pensioners. Between 1997 and 2001, a couple's basic state pension rose by £837. At the same time, band D council tax went up by £212. Therefore, 25 per cent. of the couple's pension increase was grabbed back in council tax, and the figure for single pensioners is 30 per cent.
364
Despite all those pressures, Conservative councils still have the lowest council taxes in the country. Currently, the average household pays about £88 a year more on a band D council tax bill in a Labour council and £63 more in a Liberal Democrat council, compared with Conservative-run councils. Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled councils have the highest council taxes in England, and 13 of the councils with the 20 highest council taxes in England are Labour controlled—none is Conservative.
The message is clear to all those who have a vote in the forthcoming local elections: vote Conservative for the lowest council tax. People should not blame their local council for council tax increases at three times the rate of inflation—the blame lies with the Labour Government and this team of Ministers. The sad thing is that all that is avoidable. The problems are all of the Government's own making; they are caused by their spin philosophy, which promises all and delivers nothing; their craving for central control; their fiddling of the funding formula; their switch to specific grants that they can control; their imposition of additional burdens, costs and red tape; and their total failure to address the inherent and severe problems in social services.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I remind hon. Members that the 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches starts now.
8.4 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am aware of the 12-minute limit; it is one of the reasons why, although I am sorely tempted to debate with the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), I shall refrain from doing so, except to express agreement with a specific part of his speech, but not the arguments that surround it. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problem of social services, and as the Minister recognises, there is a real problem with them not only in delivery, but in financing them locally. Although the Government are aware of that problem, I am sure that they realise that a solution must be found before the implementation of the next financial settlement in 2003. Unless that problem is addressed seriously, it will not only persist at its present level, but escalate.
I wish to make a parochial speech on the problems that are specific to Leicester, as well as to one or two other local authorities in England. Before I do so, I congratulate the Government—a rare phenomenon for me—on the real-terms increase in this year's local government financial settlement, in which real-terms expenditure is increased by 7.5 per cent. and the SSA by 5.5 per cent. Last year's increase, coupled with this year's increase, represents a real advance in local government resources.
I also welcome the Minister's comments on the floors and ceilings scheme. I do not know what outsiders makes of that phrase, but I presume that at least hon. Members know what it means. The scheme will ensure that no authority with educational services will receive less than a 4 per cent. increase in Government grant compared with 2001–02. Again, I welcome that on the national level, but the Minister will be aware that, on these occasions, hon. Members always have local bleats, and I now wish to turn them.
Although the grant increase nationally is very good, it will not prevent local authorities from continuing to face difficulties. The Minister will know, even though he is

365
looking at his notes, that the increase in SSA that Leicester has received is lower again than the national average. I know the reason for that, as well as the Minister does. There is a falling population, which therefore gives us a smaller proportion of the national pot, but we do not necessarily accept the reasoning behind that argument. As the Minister will also know, even though a population may be falling, it does not remove the difficulties. In some cases, the difficulties can be enhanced by the problems arising from a falling population. I hope that that point will be addressed in the overall review of the formula for 2003–04.
Brian White: I totally agree with my hon. Friend about falling populations, but does he accept that equal problems need to be addressed in constituencies, such as mine, that have a rapidly rising population?
Mr. Marshall: It was implicit in what I said that I recognise that there are problems on both sides. I am concerned that the way that the formula works at the moment seems to neglect the problems arising from falling populations, while recognising the problems of increasing populations. Clearly, both types of local authority have problems, but they are necessarily different kinds of problem. I hope that both will be recognised in the new formula that will come into force in 2003–04.
However, the Minister will be aware that Leicester city council has approached the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about the specific problems that have faced Leicester in the past 18 months, which will continue into 2002–03. We will require additional funding to finance the burden faced by Leicester's education and social services departments in dealing with a large influx of European Union nationals who came from the Netherlands but who were originally of Somali origin.
As I believe my right hon. Friend the Minister is aware, in 2001 approximately 300 to 400 Dutch Somali families moved to Leicester from the Netherlands. I emphasise that they came as EU nationals and not as asylum seekers, but Leicester is inevitably incurring significant additional expenditure to support those families. The social services department must provide the money to cover their daily living costs until those European citizens acquire habitual residence in the United Kingdom. Other support services also have to be provided. The social services department estimates that an additional £300,000 is required to finance those services in this financial year and that a further £400,000 will be required in the next financial year.
As my right hon. Friend will also recognise, the impact on the educational service is even more acute. Some 900 Dutch Somali children of school age have arrived in Leicester over the past 18 months, with 488 of them—54 per cent. of the total—arriving since September 2001. These arrivals have resulted in an increased requirement in the budgets delegated to schools. On average, the sums are £1,400 per primary pupil and £1,900 per secondary pupil but, in most cases, there has been no matching increase in the standard spending assessment.
Other educational costs, such as the need to provide additional language support and additional support for admission procedures, will also have to be incurred. It is
366
estimated that the education department in Leicester will need to spend more than £500,000, rising to more than £2 million next year, to support those children.
However, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire pointed out in relation to asylum seekers, the SSA calculation does not recognise most of these pupils for financial assistance. That is because the calculation for primary pupils is based on their number at the beginning of the previous year's spring term while that for secondary pupils is based on the number the previous September. Therefore, all the new primary pupils who have arrived since January 2001 and all the secondary pupils who have arrived since September 2001 have not been included in the SSA calculations.
I hope that, even at this late stage, my right hon. Friend will recognise the problem and that he will be prepared to make a financial adjustment. I realise that it is too late to change the formula and too late to include those children officially in this year's settlement, but I hope that he and the Government will consider the problem, perhaps with a view to providing the type of specific grant that is available to local authorities that are faced with a sudden increase in the number of Army personnel with children in their area. Additional finance can be found in such cases.
Leicester has an enviable reputation as a multicultural city. I should hate to see the difficulties that I have described made any worse because of a lack of financial resources. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), and myself, I urge the Government to consider the problem seriously and to come up with a solution that will provide further financial assistance to the city council in Leicester.
8.14 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders: Given the interest that there was in the earlier debate on police grants and given the number of Members present for this debate, I wonder why we discuss both issues on the same day. More time was made available for the police debate than for the local government debate even though local government is responsible for a wide range of services. Perhaps the Minister and the usual channels might like to consider that point.
"The central message from today's debate is that, in the coming year, council tax payers will end up paying more and getting less. As happened last year, there may be a few parts of the country where the council tax does not rise or where services to local people are not reduced, but in most places the council tax will go up and services will come down; local people will have to pay more, and will get less."—[Official Report, 31 January 1996; Vol. 270. c. 1028.]
Those are not my words or those of anyone on the Opposition Benches, but those of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in the debate on the final local government settlement of the previous Conservative Government.
A year later the right hon. Gentleman said:
"The local authority associations and individual local authorities accept that, while the Government are in power, all that they can expect is fine tuning of the system. The more I look at the system, the more I believe that it needs to be changed root and branch because it is a racket."

367
It is a racket, and the racket is the standard spending assessment that we have had to live with since 1990–01 when it was introduced He also said:
"The undertaking that I give is that we shall have a fair system of allocation. The present one is manifestly not fair."—[Official Report, 3 February 1997; Vol. 289, c. 694–95.]
We are still stuck with that present, manifestly unfair racket of a system.
The authorities that have been most disadvantaged by that system suffer from it year on year. Although this year's increase is, indeed, the highest increase that we have ever seen in local government, it does not make up for those lost years for those disadvantaged authorities. When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to say, "It is a 7.4 per cent. increase. We do not expect any unreasonable council tax rises," that is only half the truth. Not every authority receives 7.4 per cent. Some authorities receive much more; others receive much less. Even if those that receive much less get more than the inflation rate that the Minister mentioned, it is the retail price inflation rate. It is not the pay inflation rate or the inflation rate that local authorities have to deal with in their real world.
There are some good things in the proposals. I have mentioned the size of the settlement—that is good. Although the Minister did not mention it in his speech, the fact that the council tax benefit subsidy is to be abolished is another good thing.
However, there are some very bad things in the proposals and among them are the constant top slicing and the fact that councils are made to bid for funds. In 1997–98, 4 per cent. of funds were in that category, but the figure is nearly 15 per cent. today. It is a terribly wasteful system for councils, particularly those that go through the effort of applying for funds and do not succeed. It wastes officers' time and council tax payers' money.
The overall increase is not distributed across the board to all local authorities. The main losers from that are county and unitary social service providers. They are hit in two ways. The first is because the formula does not recognise the amount of need that there is in such areas. A number of sources say that local needs are not met by the formula. The second is because the funds are not fairly distributed. Two sectors of social services—children's social services and elderly care—face real problems. Our hospitals are filling up with people who need social services care, not hospital treatment. That fact must be tackled and, although extra money has been made available to help the social services that are under pressure, it is peanuts compared with the scale of the problem facing hospitals and social services departments in many parts of the country.
Mr. John Hayes: Untypically for a member of his party, the hon. Gentleman is making a persuasive argument. However, will he also point out that the local authorities that suffer from the problems that he has described are also often burdened with additional regulations and certainly with additional demands and statutory requirements? On top of the problems that he has described with the formula funding, that creates real tensions for personal social
368
services throughout the country, which, he may be interested to know, were £50 million worse off in the first year of this Government.
Mr. Sanders: That is a helpful, and untypically friendly, contribution from a Conservative Member, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. I was going to mention regulation.
The numbers and costs involved in children's social services in particular are beyond local authority control. The Government have to accept that. If a social worker says that a child has to go into care, that cannot be covered by a target. In smaller authorities, especially some of the small unitary authorities, it takes only a handful, or even less, of children going into full-time residential care for them to have a massive social services underspend. Something needs to be done to address that problem within smaller authorities.
Correspondence between south-west social services local authorities and the Government has highlighted many of the problems that authorities face, in particular the huge discrepancy between children's SSA and actual spend; the emerging and rapidly increasing disparity between SSA and spend on younger adults, especially those with learning disabilities; the cross-funding of those essential services by holding down spending on older people's services, with consequent destabilisation of the residential and nursing care markets; and the inevitable negative consequences on health care strategies to provide more care within the community. My constituency has a well above average proportion of residential care homes, so I am well aware of their problems. They are closing almost by the week because the fees do not enable them to carry on trading.
Those problems have been pointed out by the corporate director of social services for Somerset, writing on behalf of another 14 social services authorities, including Torbay and Bath and North-East Somerset, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). The corporate director goes on to say:
"These are national trends. This demonstrates clearly that there is a chronic funding problem."
Hon. Members have reflected that chronic funding problem, but it will get worse. There is a demographic time bomb because older people are living longer. The Government might say that the answer is to cull old people, but I do not think that they would—no party could come to power on that basis. The problem is, however, that they have to do something about the problem. We welcome the fact that older people are living longer, but we have to recognise that that takes more money from the public purse.
Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the dilemma that local authorities face when it comes to funding services for older people. Does he find it alarming that councils, because of their financial difficulties, face the prospect of having to allow someone in a care home to die before they can fund a new place?
Mr. Sanders: That is a tragedy and all too common. Indeed, it has even cropped up in my area.
In addition to the demographic time bomb, there is a pensions time bomb. Local authority pensions, like hon. Members' pensions, are an end-of-life deal in which

369
people receive a proportion of final salary. That has been underfunded over the years by central Government. They have not recognised the additional costs that have to be met for pensions, which come out of local authority budgets.
The Government impose costs themselves. Best value has been mentioned. The inspection regulation regime is necessary to provide a common standard of service, but if a council is not recompensed for the full costs of implementing that administrative system, the money has to come out of cuts or from increases in council tax. Again, that is where the settlement does not meet actual need.
There is also the whole agenda of corporate government to consider. This year's increased settlement will be swallowed up chasing the extra costs that Government impose. It does nothing to help a council that is disadvantaged by the grant formula to catch up. Funding gaps will have to be filled by increased council tax, cuts in services, asset sales, privatisation, stock transfers, increased charges or borrowing. Councils can use a raft of measures, but most of them are negative. They are not wanted and should be unnecessary.
Most councils will increase their charges—my hon. Friend the Member for Bath has studied those at some length—way above the rate of inflation. They will bear no relationship to the retail prices index. Council tax is part of the problem, together with the formula. It hits the poorest hardest, in particular people on fixed low incomes, who tend to pensioners. Let us change the formula and have one that is based on local needs. Let us scrap the council tax altogether and have a taxation system that is based on the ability to pay—a local income tax.
The Minister is on record as saying that he wants to improve service delivery, and service delivery is the key. The settlement leaves a gaping hole in some local authority budgets. There are spending shortfalls almost across the board. We have highlighted social services, but no doubt it would be as easy to talk about the gross underfunding of transport and highways. The Minister tells local government to stand and deliver while he robs the highways budget. The Secretary of State has admitted that the funding formula is unfair. The Labour party promised five years ago that the problem would be fixed. Sadly, we are still waiting for treatment.
I conclude with a final quote from the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. He said:
"The incoming Labour Government will be based on the supposition that democracy depends on the people who take the decisions carrying the can and the people who carry the can taking the decisions. So we shall be honest in our relations with local councils and we shall take responsibility for our share of those decisions. We shall not roam around the country blaming local councillors for decisions that we have taken in the House of Commons."—[Official Report, 3 February 1997; Vol. 289, c. 701.]
It would be nice if the Minister endorsed those comments. My question for him is the question that every council tax payer will ask: who is to blame for council tax rises and the cuts to services—Government or local councils?
8.28 pm
Mr. Chris Mole: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. I am not a great lover of tradition, which perhaps makes me ill equipped for
370
service in the House, but I suppose that that makes me ready to join the ranks of the modernisers. I gather that the tradition for maiden speeches is to mention in equal parts the subject at hand, the constituency and my predecessor. Fortuitously for me, there are threads that link all of those.
This is the gateway to the only speech in one's parliamentary career in which hon. Members do not seek to make interventions. I am not afraid to take advantage of that tradition. I speak in this debate on the local government finance report as the leader, until recently, of one of two local authorities serving the needs of Ipswich; my predecessor, the late Jamie Cann was the leader of the other before he came to the House. Ipswich has a tradition of being well served by its local authorities; Ipswich borough council has won multiple charter marks and this year Suffolk county council was acknowledged by the Local Government Chronicle as council of the year.
People in my constituency recognise the contribution that their councils make to their quality of life, economic development and as community leaders. Jamie Cann, as leader of Ipswich borough council, made such a contribution throughout the 1980s. At his memorial service, the people of Ipswich feted him as a man of the people, a plain speaker and a hard-working constituency MP, and for his many achievements as leader of the council. Despite the growing restraints on council spending. Jamie found the means to develop leisure facilities for hard-working families and began much of the regeneration that has made our town a more thriving and attractive place; he still found time to save the Regent theatre and the Ipswich Witches speedway club. He will be sadly missed.
The first Labour MP for Ipswich, R. F. Jackson, was also the first Labour councillor and council leader in our town; I was the first Labour councillor to lead our county council. I am sure that R. F. Jackson would have appreciated the way in which Jamie's efforts added to the development of Ipswich, and would understand that councils must have resources to make partnerships work and deliver progress.
Perusing the maiden speeches of my predecessors, I could not detect any agreement on whether the Danes or Vikings first saw the benefit of Ipswich as a natural haven. Recent archaeology has shown that the Stoke Bridge area was an early settlement of the Angles; some local historians therefore see Gippeswic as the birthplace of modern English. It is certain, however, that following the granting of a royal charter by King John more than 800 years ago, the town developed strongly around its port. Such was the commercial prominence of the town that Edward III and the Black Prince gathered 500 ships off Ipswich. I wonder what they would make of the more than 500 boats that bob in Ipswich wet dock, another product of regeneration, with a new marina, new housing and new businesses, and more than £20 million of investment from sources as diverse as Associated British Ports and the East of England development agency's single regeneration budget.
Ipswich has moved on. My predecessors spoke of manufacturing, which is now much reduced, but the arrival of BT, my own former employer in the late 1960s and early 1970s at what is now Adastral park, has had a lasting effect on the town, which has become a primary location for the development of knowledge-based e-business. A manifestation of the growth of that sector is

371
the IP-City partnership, which is successfully developing one node of the Ipswich to Cambridge hi-tech corridor. That partnership, along with the Suffolk development agency, in which local councils are major players, is driving the regional economy toward the future. If I can be permitted one glance over my shoulder, it would be to recognise that that sector needs the development of skills that would be better provided if we had a university in the town. Indeed, Members can see in the House of Commons Library a depiction of Cardinal Wolsey on his way to Westminster; he was the last civic leader to try to develop higher education facilities in Ipswich. Unfortunately, the only remaining manifestation is Wolsey's gate, which is largely held up by three reinforced steel joists.
Ipswich is blessed with local councils and councillors who are committed to their role as community leaders and to working in partnership with the private sector and other public agencies to help the town develop in a sustainable way and with due regard for the environment and social inclusion. However, I should like Ministers to note that in promoting partnership working all partners must be able to bring something to the table. Councils such as Ipswich borough and Suffolk county, which are not high spenders, want to provide community leadership in partnership, but they must be able to negotiate with resources to make those partnerships work; that is not getting significantly easier for them.
I welcome the local government finance report as something of a curate's egg. The settlement again allows for a real-terms increase in Government support; as someone who put council budgets together between 1993 and 1997, I can assure the House that it is a welcome turnaround from those dark days. We need to be realistic about the implications for council tax; all parties in the Local Government Association accept that more local spending needs to be financed locally, which has led to significant increases in council taxation over the past ten years. Not to accept that reality would be to prevent our councils from tackling challenges such as the placement of difficult young children—much of the problem stems from the Children Act 1989, which was passed under the previous Government—and the community care of the elderly, which has only recently attracted specific, but as yet not continuing or recurring, Government support.
I welcome unreservedly the increase in education standard spending, as Government estimates finally catch up with the level of spending that Suffolk county council has been making for many years. Our schools welcome the certainty that has kept them part of the LEA family—an LEA that was recently assessed by Ofsted as one of the top six in the country.
That leaves me only to introduce the fourth element of an Ipswich Member's maiden speech, for Hansard shows that it is traditional to congratulate Ipswich Town football club on its recent success. I hope that the club is in the middle of another one—at 8 o'clock, I understand, the score was one-nil. I have no difficulty in congratulating the club, which has played large in my life recently. It played Milan away on the evening of my selection as a candidate, and at home on the night of the by-election, in what turned out to be a notable double victory.
I look forward to future debate in the Chamber. In the present debate, I encourage my hon. Friends to support the Government.
8.35pm
Mr. David Curry: It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole). He said that he was not a great fan of tradition. A few moments later, I noticed that the Labour Deputy Chief Whip arrived in the Chamber, so clearly the hon. Gentleman has already made his mark in that regard. We should not worry—he will become a fan of tradition after he has been here for a little while. After all, his affection for Ipswich Town football club denotes a gentleman with considerable faith.
We all subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's gracious remarks about his predecessor, whom we shall miss, as the people of Ipswich already miss him, but they will soon learn that their new Member of Parliament has brought to this place a great deal of experience of local affairs. He spoke of their history with affection, a little teasing and a great deal of understanding. I am sure that he will soon feel at home with us, and we will feel at home with him.
When I was a Minister, with responsibility for local government, the hon. Gentleman came to see me, I suspect, to ask for more money, but there again, almost everybody did. The only point that I make about Ipswich is that in the return match against Dynamo Kiev, the club lost handsomely. I would not wish to draw any analogies about the next election result on that basis. Being a supporter of Bolton Wanderers for reasons that are too complex to explain, I have some doubts about wishing to see Ipswich rise above the bottom three in the table, because I know which team would replace it.
I hope that I am not regarded as eccentric for wanting to make a speech, rather than an intervention, in the debate. I note that total standard spending for local government is about £60 billion in England. That is a quarter of all public expenditure. I cannot help but note that when the Chancellor delivers a Budget, we spend five days debating it, and when we are speaking about the distribution of 25 per cent. of total public expenditure, we spend three hours debating it. Perhaps we should reflect on that allocation of time.
I accept that the settlement is relatively generous. I am grateful for the abolition of the council tax benefits subsidy limitation scheme—a wonderful mouthful. I served on the Committee that passed the relevant order, and I said at the time what a silly idea it was. It was a means of making the almost-poor subsidise the poor. I am glad that the Government have at last come round to my way of thinking and got rid of the wretched thing, which only pushed up council taxes at the expense of those least able to pay, in those local authorities with the largest number of houses in the lower bands, multiplying the effect of hitting the people whom, in theory, the Government were trying to help.
As the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) said, the increases in RSG and SSA necessarily have implications for the level of council tax. In a sense, they pull the council tax up with them. If a council raises a third of its money locally, if the Government say that spending should rise by, say, 7 per cent. and insist on the passporting of all the SSA through to the services, and if the Government further provide only two thirds of that increase, it follows as night follows day that the other third must come from the council tax in roughly the same sort of volume as the increases that the Government have

373
made. In North Yorkshire, that pull-through effect automatically means that a council tax increase of some 4.5 per cent. is necessary to make the settlement whole.
Although the settlement may be relatively generous, serious problems exist. Like other hon. Members, I shall talk about social services. Three years ago in North Yorkshire, we "lost" £3 million because of a change in the method of calculating the formula. Social services are historically underfunded; they do not have the same lobby as education. All head teachers suddenly became wonderfully acquainted with the area cost adjustment, even those who taught in schools that were nearer the Scottish border than the south-east region.
Social services funding is fragmented by its nature. The people whom it helps are not perhaps the most eloquent in arguing their case. Social services are therefore the Cinderella of local government. In North Yorkshire, we have had to overspend more than £3 million to keep social services afloat. That has almost exhausted the reserves. We must now rebuild the budget, stabilise it and reconstitute the reserves.
The reserves are used to deal with not only the demand on social services but natural disasters such as foot and mouth disease. The Selby rail crash happened in my constituency, and the coroner's costs fell on the local authority. Flooding also occurred there. Reconstituting the social services budget and covering the emergency costs are worth another 4.5 per cent. or more.
A curious quirk of the Bellwin formula, which I am sure that the Minister recognises, means that the amount of money that the Government allocate to alleviate emergencies depends on the number of teachers that the local authority employs and their grades. It kicks in after 0.2 per cent. of the budget, which is largely determined by the teachers' pay bill. [Interruption.] I await the Minister's wonderful new scheme. I remember his predecessors' words about finding a way through the area cost adjustment. They knew that the north-west passage was somewhere in the ice floes. Boat after boat got stuck in the ice because the north-west passage did not exist. The Minister will find it difficult to negotiate his way when the wonderful sons or daughters of SSA come into existence.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Curry: I am afraid not because I am time limited.
The build-up of pressure on social services is remorseless, and demography partly accounts for that. However, the increase in demand is most acute in children's services; it is not surprising that local authorities decide to play it safe after so many high profile cases of social services failures. The implications are enormous. The Government know that the funding is inadequate, that the inadequacy will continue and that that invites a crisis.
We all know that local authorities currently spend £1 billion above their SSA on social services. The Minister is an intelligent man; he knows that that constitutes a crisis. I am sure that he would have loved to use some of the Department's transport underspending for social services, but the Treasury would not allow him to make the transfer, and he simply got stuffed.
374
Our case in North Yorkshire is eloquent. We can foresee the pressures. Elderly people whose care was previously funded directly by the Department of Social Security, now the Department for Work and Pensions, under the so-called preserved rights will be funded by the local authority. There are approximately 1,000 cases in North Yorkshire. Let us consider the fees. The weekly fee for ordinary residential care is £229 under preserved rights, but North Yorkshire pays £275; the fee for highly dependent people is £265 under preserved rights, but North Yorkshire pays £300; the nursing fee is £342 under preserved rights but £390 for North Yorkshire.
It is inevitable that care home owners will ask for the equalisation of those fees. North Yorkshire has not paid that money without heavy negotiations with the care homes. In my constituency, care homes gave notice to the local authority to terminate contracts for people, including those in their 90s, who had been in homes for years because the owners believed that they could not make a living, the local authority could not pay more and the victims tended to be the least able to understand the problem or to defend themselves. Those scattered incidents will become more common unless we consider the structure of the services.
The county has received short-term funding through the building capacity and partnership scheme, for which we are grateful. But the Minister talked about the need for certainty. He said that that was why he was reforming his system. Well, we are all sitting here agog, waiting for the next phase of the spending review before we know whether that funding will continue in the third year, so there is no continuity there.
The Government have also issued guidelines on charging. North Yorkshire's local authority has had an extensive range of charging, but some of that will have to be discontinued, as its estimated cost is more than £500,000 over six months. That is just for social services departments. In addition, the rules have changed on the educational standards fund, so that the Government's participation goes down.
Then we have the wonderful, complicated business of the transfer of funding from the local education authorities to the learning and skills councils, which makes the Schleswig-Holstein question look elementary. That has been done in a way that has left a number of local authorities, including Durham and North Yorkshire, having to subsidise education below the levels of their sixth forms because of the way the money has been passed back, after having been taken from the local authority. This means that the counties are going to have to subsidise education in that way.
In general, I welcome the settlement. I look forward—as one who has been there and got the tee-shirt—with eager anticipation to what comes after it. I exhort the Minister to take seriously his own promises about ending the ring fencing. and to urge his Secretary of State to take seriously what he said in Harrogate, which was that he was going to dismantle some of the apparatus—the great gendarmerie—that is supervising best value. That great inspectorate has taken over most of the democratic and accountable functions in large parts of our public services. I look forward to what is to come. As the clown said to Cleopatra:
"I wish you joy of the worm."
8.46 pm
Mr. David Kidney: Having listened to my hon. Friend the new Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole), I am convinced that he is going to be a formidable debater in our proceedings. I was pleased to hear his praise for his predecessor, a fine man who is sadly missed in this place. I encourage my hon. Friend to retain his zest for modernisation, speaking as a member of the Modernisation Committee with a full agenda for modernisation in this Parliament.
Local government is big business. In this financial year, councils in England are spending more than £61 billion on delivering daily the broad range of services with which we are so familiar. The Government send those councils three quarters of that spending power: half in the form of revenue support grant and a quarter in non-domestic rates. So only a quarter of the spending by English councils comes from the councils' own resources—council tax, fees and charges.
Last December's White Paper says that this imbalance of income is less important to address than what the White Paper calls an imbalance of control. Most directly, this phrase refers to local education authorities passing Government grant through to individual schools. My view is that both are vitally important and that it is time to look at more radical ways of giving councils more control over their income. This is a complex issue, but I would like to see the time come when councils collect a range of taxes that are payable locally and spent locally.
How the Government share out their revenue support grant is of intense interest to all hon. Members and their constituents. The present formula, dating back to 1991, is widely discredited. It comprises an obscure set of values grafted on to outdated standard spending assessments, and causes great disparities in funding between councils. These are disparities that this Labour Government say that they cannot justify.
The case for reform of the system was definitively set out in the Government's Green Paper on local government finance, published in September 2000. In general, the Government hold out the prospect of a fairer system with simplified formulas, floors and ceilings, safety valves and a limit on the use by Departments of ring-fenced grant.
For education in particular, the White Paper published in December promises us a standard pupil entitlement that can be tracked through the system from the Government settlement to the individual school budget. The only enhancements to Government grant for education would be for deprivation and for high costs of recruitment and retention. I would strongly welcome a system such as that for distributing Government grant to councils. It is my profound regret that we do not have such a system yet.
Mr. Mark Todd: Does my hon. Friend share my impatience with the slow progress of change? Many of us who represent constituencies that have been adversely affected by the current system have lobbied assiduously for change for the past four or five years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the outcome of the current review is so impatiently awaited that it could be described as a "last chance saloon"?
Mr. Kidney: We have been waiting a long time for change. I am probably more forgiving of the Government's conduct than some hon. Members, because
376
I have followed the subject closely and I know the huge scale of the challenge and the sincere commitment of the Government. My right hon. Friend the Minister has been pressed hard tonight to confirm that the new system will begin from next year's local government settlement, and he has said that it will. May I say to my right hon. Friend that, in working out the details of the new system, I hope that the Government will be open with us. Hon. Members have a keen interest in what has been developed, and rightly so.
It would not be correct to say that the Government made no changes to the present system after the 1997 election. In a written answer to me in 2000, the then Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), informed me that there were 15 changes in the method of determining SSAs for the 1998–99 local government settlement and 20 changes for the 1999–2000 settlement. One of those changes, in respect of children's services within social services, has benefited Staffordshire county council by about £1 million a year.
However, it is in education funding that the greatest dissatisfaction is expressed. That is because of the vastness of the disparities of funding and the importance of the service. Year after year in the 1990s, in the league table of education funding for shire counties, Staffordshire was stuck in last-but-one position. Parents, school governors and teachers would compare our lowly position with the high position every year of Hertfordshire, and would ask why their children's education was worth less than that of children in Hertfordshire.
Many changes have been made since 1997. The Labour Government have increased overall spending on education. The rising tide of funding for capital as well as revenue spending has benefited Staffordshire. For example, in 1997–98 Staffordshire's education SSA was £279.1 million; by 2000–01 it was £336.4 million. In 1997–98, Government grants were £12.9 million; by 2000–01 they were £21.5 million. In 1997–98, capital spending was £7.4 million; by 2000–01,it £34.2 million.
Frustratingly, the disparity with our friends in Hertfordshire has not closed; it has not even stayed the same, but has continued to grow.
Mr. Mark Prisk: As a Member representing a Hertfordshire constituency, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise the simple fact that because of higher housing and salary costs, Hertfordshire's local education authority has higher costs?
Hon. Members: Rubbish.
Mr. Kidney: As the hon. Gentleman will have gathered from many sedentary comments, there is not much sympathy for that argument. If the new system is developed according to the Government's intentions, it will include a factor for recruitment and retention costs, which are higher in some parts of the country than in others.
David Taylor: My hon. Friend rightly referred to Staffordshire's ever present bottom-but-one place in the league table for primary and secondary school SSA. I regret to say that Leicestershire

377
has had an ever present place in the bottom slot. Does he acknowledge that the problems that he described in Staffordshire are even worse in Leicestershire?
Mr. Kidney: There is some variation each year, although Staffordshire and Leicestershire are among those counties that often appear at the bottom of the pile, as my hon. Friend says.
Two years ago, the 40 worst-funded local authorities decided to band together to draw attention to the injustice of the disparities and to the discontentment across the country, and to campaign for a fairer settlement. Whether metropolitan or shire, unitary or non-unitary, and whatever their shade of political control, the authorities formed a fair funding forum. They called themselves F40 for short.
Inside Parliament, I have been willing to make contact with hon. Members from both sides of the House who have constituencies within the boundaries of F40 authorities. Together, those hon. Members and authorities have mobilised a strong force for change. That was vividly shown by the 14,402 representations that the Government received from F40 campaigners in support of the case for change set out in the local government finance Green Paper.
I believe that the F40 campaign has been the stimulus for changes that have already taken place. There has been the Green Paper proposal for a new pupil entitlement, the introduction of floors and ceilings into last year's and now this year's settlement, and the introduction of flat rate payments to all schools.
I pay tribute to all those who have helped to organise the F40 campaign, and to those who have supported it. I also pay tribute to Ministers who have given us a fair hearing, and have acted when convinced of the justice of our cause. Things are changing. I described Staffordshire's perennial position next to bottom of the funding league table for shire counties. I see from a written answer on 15 January that we are now seventh from the bottom.
Tomorrow I face an audience of 400 angry parents, governors and teachers in Stafford. They will tell me that all this is too little, too late. When I say to them that a fair, fully funded new system will be in place for next year's local government settlement, I sincerely hope that the Government do not subsequently let me down. More importantly, I hope that they do not let down those parents, governors and teachers who have waited so long.
8.56 pm
Sir Paul Beresford: The previous two speeches—my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is about to skip out as fast as he can—brought back memories. My right hon. Friend and I looked after local government under the last Conservative Government, although that way of putting it is debatable. I can remember much the same complaints and points being made then by different Members representing different parts of the country. I look forward to this breath of fresh air: this new idea that is brightly being proposed. However, if the formula has any indicators or recognition of need—I certainly hope it does—we will have exactly
378
the same thing all over again. I suspect that the sign of the albatross may be appropriate given some of the Minister's comments. I must say that they caused a smile.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon has stolen some of my thunder, especially on social services. In Surrey, social services are at crisis point, particularly the care of the elderly. Reference was made to the value of property in the south-east. Many of the elderly in Surrey are looked after in large, old, high-value homes. They require changes to be made to comply with new regulations, so many of them have closed. It is of more value to the owners to sell them and to use the profit to move to a better life, perhaps in another country with more sunshine—that was said with a touch of bias on my part—than to pay for the necessary changes.
I was intrigued by the fact that the Minister went on at some length about the size of the announced increase. At 7.5 per cent., it is a considerable increase, but that does not necessarily mean that all is simple and clear. Underneath the Minister's smile and spin presentation are some nasties. The obvious one is the specific grants, which have increased annually and been top-sliced. Funds are specifically designated to selected local authorities, apparently at ministerial whim. The volume of specific grant allocation has tripled since 1997, and the Government have voiced woolly aspirations to reverse the trend.
We should reflect on the fact that this year there has been a 40 per cent. increase in educational specific grants, and a 100 per cent. increase in Department of Health specific grants. All those are tied closely to defined expenditure in uniquely prescribed modes, with all the accompanying bureaucracy and expense of guidance, conditions, reports and audit.
The grants are designed in such a way as to knock flat the Government's claim of increased stability and predictability in local Government finance. Local authorities are being forced to rely increasingly on major specific grants that can be withdrawn at any time. Major grants are now to be attached to local public service agreements. Most major authorities are negotiating on those grants now. They will be heavily dependent on fairly unpredictable factors such as road accidents, graffiti and, perhaps, the examination results of small groups of pupils. I suspect that that could present the Minister with another albatross.
The Minister has said quite frequently, as did his predecessor, that freezing the SSA methodology brought stability. That has been questioned by Members on both side of the House today. Many of us think that the Government have refused to consider any desirable changes suggested by local authorities and introduced their own changes, necessitated by their own policies, while pretending that they are data changes rather than methodology changes. As we are well aware, authorities are now faced with the complete unpredictability produced by the new grant formula.
There is no doubt that the Government's paranoid obsession with central control has landed local authorities throughout the country with enormous volumes of regulations and requirements. Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, I served on a Committee that warned the Government about the so-called best value regime. We told them that the costs would be astronomic, and would not be justified by the results. That warning has been proved correct.

379
I believe that last year the cost of installing the best value system, with its myriad officials, meetings, consultations, audits and auditors' reports, swallowed many authorities' grant increases. The size of the Audit Commission has more than doubled, the extra being funded by local government. As I said yesterday, I understand that the internal costs of the monitoring of councils by the Department's officials has risen to £600 million, charged to the taxpayer. Local authorities' extra costs have been increased by the replacement of the traditional clear, open committee system with a choice of systems. The Minister said yesterday that there was a choice, but no one wanted it. It was a choice between three bad options, the fourth having been withdrawn. While adding dramatically to authorities' costs, that has led to a diminution in the transparency of decisions and a general reduction in council tax payers' interest in the activities of their local councils.
This extraordinarily centralistic Labour Government purport to be a friend of local government, but clearly are not. I have no doubt that if the trend continues, next year's local government finance report will make sad reading.
Underlying the setting of council tax is the way in which local authorities use the position in relation to the services they provide. They have opportunities to make distinctive economic changes, which the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders)—who is not here now—failed to recognise. I do not think he has heard of the word "efficiencies". I am sure that, on average, Conservative councils will end up charging council tax payers less, but I am also sure that the Minister will ignore that and turn to the percentage argument.
Year by year, Labour Ministers choose to ignore the fact that a small increase in a small council tax may be large in percentage terms and, conversely, a large increase in a huge tax may be small in percentage terms. The percentage argument does not work; what counts in the end is the quality of service received by the public, and the size of the bill that arrives through their doors.
A very simple example has come up. In times gone by, the media regularly took part in the sport of comparing Wandsworth with Lambeth. Interestingly, that comparison is still valid. The cost of a quality household waste collection in Wandsworth is approximately £24 per household. There is a poorer contrast next door because the cost in Lambeth is approximately twice as much per household.
I am not alone in making that comparison. This afternoon I was handed a copy of a cutting from the South London Press. It details a visit from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) to the south London Patmore estate. That estate is split by a boundary line. Part of it is under Labour-controlled Lambeth and part of it is under Tory-controlled Wandsworth. She explained to the South London Press:
"There is a huge difference in the level of service provided between the two boroughs.
The Patmore co-operative is fantastic but they are being let down by the local authority"—
Labour Lambeth.
We must remember that the public, the council tax payer, the firms that pay business rates, are footing the bill. There is not enough recognition by the Government of the need to take the load off local government and to give democratically elected members the opportunity to
380
produce quality services without myriad auditors and other people peering over their shoulders at their every move.
9.6 pm
Mr. Clive Betts: The report essentially does two things. First, it sets out the overall amount of grant that central Government will give to local authorities. There have been expressions of support, certainly from Labour Members, for what the Government have done. The settlement is reasonably generous; the increase is well above the level of inflation. Secondly, it distributes the money among the individual local authorities.
As a Sheffield Member, I can accept the Government's position this year. They have gone for stability in the light of the fact that, next year, fundamental changes, for which we are all waiting, will be made, but from Sheffield's perspective today's settlement is another in a long line of unacceptable and unfair grant distributions, although it is considerably less unacceptable and unfair than the grant distributions before 1997. The Government have brought some improvements to Sheffield's position since that time.
At least we can celebrate the fact this is the last time that we will have to discuss this form of settlement—the standard standing assessment—in the Chamber. We have been promised that next year we will not simply get a settlement derived from tinkering with the formulae but one based on a completely new system. My right hon. Friend the Minister has said that that system must be transparent. It is important not simply that the anoraks can explain it to us as politicians, but that we as politicians can explain it to our constituents. That needs to be a fundamental part of any new system.
We should not be surprised that the present system, with all its regressions and proxies, is not transparent—it was not designed to be. Hon. Members talk about this Government's control freakery. Where were they in the 1990s when that system was invented and developed? It was not transparent because it was meant to hide the fundamental attack by the Conservative Government on local government spending. It was meant to hide the sleights of hand to pass money to councils such as Westminster and Wandsworth. Fundamentally, it was part of the Tory Government's command and control policy towards Labour local authorities.
On one side of the coin, we had the standard spending assessment, which is about not just grant distribution, but controlling spending levels; on the other, we had the arbitrary system of council tax capping. The two went hand in hand. They were a system of control over local authorities. That is why there is no transparency; the system was not just about grant distribution but control. The changes that the Government have introduced are welcome.
Just to show that the current system is nonsense, one of its peculiarities affects Sheffield. The chief executive has written to me about it. I have been critical of the approach of the Liberal Democrat council in Sheffield to housing benefits over the past two years, which has caused chaos and confusion among my constituents. At least the council has got on quickly with introducing the benefits verification framework, and has sought to bear down on benefit fraud. That has led to a reduction in

381
benefit claimants, because the people who should not have been claiming benefits in the first place have been taken out. As the council accepts, the direct cost of that process has been borne by central Government, but there is a twist in the tale. Among the myriad formulae and proxies that constitute the SSA, one proxy for poverty and deprivation is housing benefit case loads. Under this wonderful system, if a council bears down on fraud by reducing the number of fraudulent claimants, its area is deemed to be less poor and less deprived, so it gets less grant. That is just one nonsense in the system, but it has cost Sheffield £1.2 million this year. Such stupidities cannot be explained to the public, there is no rationale or reason for them and they must be fundamentally reformed when we get the changes that we are promised.
The new system will doubtless be complicated as well, and my right hon. Friend is right to say that it cannot increase everyone's grant. However, on looking at the totality of the current system, one can instinctively tell that things are wrong with it. I can see no reason why Sheffield and similar authorities receive less grant per head. People can show me the formula and the calculations, but they cannot convince me that the system is right, and I cannot convince my constituents. Given that Sheffield's neighbouring authority, Barnsley, is bouncing along the bottom of the grant table, and given Barnsley's needs compared with authorities that get far more grant per head, the system is clearly unfair and unreasonable and needs to be changed. It is against such benchmarks that we will judge the new system.
One particular and peculiar problem of the current system deprives my local authority of resources. Because of the formula's averaging process, if an authority has areas of poverty and real deprivation, and some of great affluence—Sheffield has such areas—it will probably lose out on grant altogether and get nothing even for the very poor areas. I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the problem, and I hope that it will be addressed through future arrangements.
On occasions such as this, many hon. Members usually berate the area cost adjustment. I suspect that that has not happened today because this is the last of such arrangements. However, we have not forgotten it and we are still unhappy about it, and we are looking for change. Everyone accepts that the cost of employing staff is higher in some parts of the country—particularly in central London—than in others, but the ACA does not work fairly across the country. We accept that the settlement constitutes a minimal change, but the ACA needs to be reconsidered in future.
Hon. Members have commented on social services, and I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Minister to point out that there were choices for local authorities. In Sheffield, higher priority could be given to important social services spending, rather than to matters such as corporate publicity and the salaries of senior officers. I accept, however, that there are real pressures on the budgets of social services, which may not have always managed their resources well in the past. We have rightly focused attention on large increases for education and on encouraging local authorities to spend that money accordingly; nevertheless, social services have been left
382
behind. I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that the Government are aware of that issue, and I hope that they will develop some real proposals.
There is one final matter that I hope the Government will consider. As I have said, the settlement is generous overall, but generosity can be a two-edged sword. Central Government give local authorities a big share—about 80 per cent.—of local authority budgets, and they control such expenditure to a degree by determining how much a local authority will be allowed to spend. That causes enormous gearing problems. If a local authority decides to increase its budget and therefore to increase council tax, and if council tax constitutes only 20 per cent. of its spending, the 4:1 gearing ratio proves a real disincentive to responding to the wishes of the local electorate by spending extra money to improve local services.
Ring fencing has been raised by other hon. Members. I believe that there will be a problem in the long term arising from the fact that central Government control 80 per cent. of local authority grant, compared with the 20 per cent. that comes from council tax. Moreover, central Government increasingly seek to determine how the grant that they give to local authorities is spent.
Those two factors are fundamental and crucial. They go to the heart of local democracy and the freedoms of local authorities. They are also central to efforts to get people re-engaged with local politics. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will not be able to deal tonight with the problems that remain, but I hope that the Government will address them in the future. I look forward to Ministers returning to the House on a future occasion with proposals to tackle the problems that I have described.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If all hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate can confine their remarks to about seven minutes, they will be successful. If they cannot, they will not be able to speak in the debate.
9.15 pm
Mr. Mark Prisk: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall take note of your request.
I shall begin by welcoming the headline increase of 7.9 per cent that has been proposed for Hertfordshire county council. That reflects the record increase in the county's school population, the growing elderly population, and the higher costs that the county faces. I am sure that the last factor is something that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and I could discuss at greater length, given the opportunity.
It is good that the Department has listened to the representations from me and other hon. Members with constituencies in Hertfordshire, and from county council officers. It has recognised our needs and the pressures that we face, but I hope that the Minister will understand why I was somewhat disappointed by the subsequent imposition of the floors and ceilings cap. That has meant that Hertfordshire will get £2.6 million less than it sought.
Given that the Department listened to representations, discussed people's needs and looked at the pressures involved, I fail to understand why it then imposed a simple, crude cap in a rather arbitrary way. I do not think that that has helped the process, as I hope that the Minister will understand.

383
The result is simple Hertfordshire county council's budget has been reduced by £2.6 million. That includes a reduction of £1.6 million in the schools budget, which could not have come at a worse time. Hertfordshire has one of the fastest-growing school populations of any county in the country, and that puts considerable pressure on school places.
Every week, I receive letters from distraught parents who are trying to get their youngsters places in nursery, primary or secondary schools. The rising school population and the funding that is about to be made available mean that there will be more letters and more disappointed parents and pupils.
The problem is compounded by the teacher shortages that we suffer. Those shortages are evident at primary level, and secondary school head teachers in my area tell me that the problem is also being felt at secondary level, especially in Hertford. That reflects one of the elements that the Department originally recognised—the fact that, in Hertfordshire and the other home counties, it is extremely difficult to retain senior staff.
The third reason why the budget cut has come at an especially bad time for our schools is that the pupil-teacher ratio in Hertfordshire is bad and getting worse. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) has rightly and recently made it clear that pupil-teacher ratios in Hertfordshire, unlike other parts of the country, have worsened over the past five years. Indeed, they have worsened every year since this Government came to power. I say that with considerable regret, which I hope that the Minister will understand.
The settlement involves a cut of £1.6 million in the schools budget. Contrary to the Government's promise in 1997, if the budget cut is implemented things are only going to get worse in Hertfordshire schools.
Two other uncertainties remain, and I would welcome any response from the Minister with regard to them. The first is related to previously housed asylum seekers, an issue that was raised before. I know that ceilings have been imposed on the costs involved, as other hon. Members have mentioned. The difficulty in Hertfordshire is that there is a £1 million gap between the cost to the county and the money that is forthcoming from the Government. The ceiling has been relaxed in Oxfordshire and for London authorities, and I should welcome any indication from the Minister of a similar flexibility for Hertfordshire.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) referred to preserved rights. I do not claim to be expert in the finer details of local government finance, but I understand that this relates to elderly people who were in residential homes before 1993. The county council is quite prepared to accept responsibility for these people, and has done so, but on the basis that the Government are willing to provide the funds. At this point, the funds from the Government are £2.2 million short. I know that the county is making representations to the Minister, and I ask him to bear those in mind.
The cost of running services in Hertfordshire and other home counties is high and is rising faster than in other parts of the country. The pressures are great, particularly with regard to our school population. I was pleased that the Government listened to our representations about the SSA, but deeply disappointed that they were ignored,
384
given the arbitrary nature of the floors and ceilings mechanism. The mechanism is crude; it contradicts the aim of matching spending to need. In Hertfordshire, it will betray every child in our schools.
9.21 pm
Mr. Kevan Jones: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who is no longer in his seat, I intend to be parochial and raise the dire situation faced by Durham county council this year.
The Minister has referred to an average settlement of more than 7 per cent. Durham's allocation is just over 5 per cent., one of the lowest settlements of any county council in the country. Durham county council has always been moderate and responsible. Even during the 1980s, a time of lunacy in some London boroughs, Durham was a responsible council that worked within its means. It went through some tough times, with the closures of the steelworks at Consett and the Durham coalfield, but it came through and worked in partnership with local business and local people. This year, however, it finds itself in a depressing situation.
Social services and education have been mentioned tonight. Durham, like many other county councils, is facing pressures due to the growing numbers of elderly people in the community. That is exacerbated in County Durham. Its long industrial past has meant a legacy of industrial-related diseases to elderly people, and they need intensive care from social services.
The other pressure is children's services, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). He is right to say that those services are expensive and there is no control over them. Durham's intake this year is up by about 30 per cent., and the council cannot budget for that. A colleague of mine on Newcastle city council, Colin Gray, the chair of finance, used to say that it would be cheaper to send someone to Eton or Harrow than it would be to have them looked after by the local authority. Education services are very expensive and councils such as Durham have very little control over the number of children in their care.
It has been announced that Durham will receive an additional £1.8 million mainly to deal with bed blocking, which has been a problem for Durham and most other councils this winter. That compares with last year's figure of £1.6 million, which does not bring a great deal of joy to the county council. It has been estimated that to deal with its social services problem, the council needs about £10 million. That raises a bigger problem, faced by many councils, of how to make the connection between councils, social services departments and the health service, because £10 million is a drop in the ocean to the health service but not to a council such as County Durham.
The council is making some difficult decisions this year about the closure of homes. It is undertaking rationalisation that the present leadership realises is long overdue. The council is also making a capital investment of £10 million in new provision. That capital receipt came from the council's share in the sale of Newcastle airport. The council is facing up to its social services problems and tackling them.
In Durham, education offers a good example of non-joined-up government. Last year, the county council received £2.76 million in education budget support grant.

385
That was withdrawn this year so it will be difficult for the council to meet the standard funds for investment in schools. That is sad. In my constituency and throughout Durham, since Labour came to power in 1997 there has been some good capital investment. For example, almost £3 million has been spent on Pelton Roseberry school and we can see the difference that has made. However, Durham will have to find that funding this year.
Furthermore, money has been taken from council budgets for the learning and skills councils, as has been mentioned; £850,000 has been taken from Durham county council's budget that was not spent on sixth form provision. The result is that primary and secondary schools will suffer because that money was arbitrarily taken from the budget. When I made representations to the Minister about that, he said that it was a matter for the Department for Education and Skills. However, I plead with the Government to use joined-up thinking on such decisions.
Durham is not an irresponsible council. It has had to take many difficult decisions during the past few years but we shall face a record rise in council tax this year, whether we like it or not. According to my estimate, after today's announcement, grants of about £300,000 will be allocated to Durham county council. That is a drop in the ocean when education has lost £2.76 million alone, apart from the pressures on social services.
I plead with the Minister to consider Durham's case. The problems will not go away and the council will find it difficult not to impose council tax rises of 10 per cent. or more. Several hon. Members have referred to the new system that will apply next year. I accept that, but I agree—with some trepidation—with the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) who pointed out that we are trying to find a system that will please everybody, but clearly we cannot do so.
Durham faces a tough year and local politicians will have to take some hard decisions. I plead with Ministers to reconsider Durham's case. We will not be able to avoid a council tax rise of at least 10 per cent.
9.28 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: There are parts of four councils in my constituency: two district councils, one unitary council and the county council. In our local newspaper, all the predictions are that although council tax may rise by less than 10 per cent. in one or two places, the rise for the councils in my constituency and for neighbouring authorities will be much more than 10 per cent.
The Minister might have given me good news for the district councils although I am not sure. If the news is not as good as I thought, I shall write him another letter.
I shall concentrate on the county council and the unitary authority and, yes, I shall speak about social services again. I make no apology for being repetitive because they are so important. Last year, throughout the south-west region, 13 of the 15 authorities spent 72 per cent. above the SSA for children's services, so we cannot point the finger at individual authorities.
I am a member of Poole unitary council. I promise that I will not go through the budget line by line—I shall choose a few examples. Poole is a small authority and, as
386
several hon. Members have pointed out, that makes things doubly hard just one change has a big impact. Spending on children's services is an enormous 70 per cent. above SSA. In the social services budget for 2001–02, with an SSA of about £23 million, Poole unitary authority is heading for a £2 million overspend. That might not sound a huge sum, but it certainly is in relation to the budget. That obviously signals tremendous problems for next year.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the problems in social services. We cannot take risks with our precious young people. We must respond to real-life problems. I cannot believe that the Minister is actually asking us to look for cuts in the social services budget when it is so tight.
On Friday I had a meeting, along with other MPs, with Poole unitary authority. I asked why, when most authorities were reporting an overspend on social services, Poole's overspend was so large proportionately. The answer was that there were special factors, such as an inability to find enough foster parents and a consequent need to buy in extra help, and the fact that some children needed very expensive education.
Poole, as an authority, has a low council tax. It is in the lowest quartile for the country. It is one of the lowest spending authorities throughout the south-west—it has been in Liberal Democrat control for the past 10 years. One cannot really accuse Poole authority of being an irresponsible high spender, but what is it to do unless there is some response to all the cries, from throughout the country, about the particularly severe situation regarding social services?
I beg the Minister to listen tonight. We hope for better with the new formula, but the crisis is with us now. We cannot afford to wait another year before that may be addressed. I put that plea for all the councils with the same problem, because it is so serious and the individual cases are harrowing. I shall be in a position to vote, and I certainly cannot vote for any shortages on the social services budget.
We are short of time so I shall change topic rather abruptly and move on to fridges for a while, to illustrate my point. I repeat that Poole is a small unitary authority. I thought that there was a mistake in an e-mail that I received tonight, but I can now see that the figures do add up. Poole has been allocated £17,000 to store all the surplus fridges, and officers from Poole unitary authority have told me that that amount is about £180,000 short. That is a very big sum for a small unitary authority.
I thought that that figure was wrong, but the Local Government Association predicts that storage of surplus fridges will cost between £60 and £65 million—10 times the £6 million that has been allocated. Whereas I responded in a similar way to the Minister when I read that e-mail, thinking that it was wrong, I now, having heard the LGA figures, think that it is right.
The question for my council and many other councils is whether they should budget for costs of £180,000 or whatever and build that figure into the council tax because they have to find that money, or hope that the Minister will monitor the costs closely and address the matter if the costs exceed £17,000, or whatever amount each authority has been allocated.
Our biggest concern must be the fact that there will be high percentage increases in council tax. It was refreshing when the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire

387
(Mr. Moss) said that the high percentage increases in council tax would be down to the Government. In my area, we usually find that if it is a Liberal Democrat-controlled council, various leaflets say that it is the Liberal Democrats' fault. If it is a Conservative-controlled council, those same leaflets say that it is the Government's fault. It is bad that we have a blame culture.
The only point that I want to raise on reform of the area cost adjustment is that it must be clear, open and transparent so that local councillors are genuinely accountable to their electorate, which they are not at the moment. At the moment it is a case of who tells the best story and how many times. We have some amazing graphs that go off the pages referring to council tax increases in Liberal Democrat councils, but at the end of the day my authority and Dorset county council have relatively low council taxes, so that is not the issue.
However, a large percentage increase is an issue for many elderly people and others on fixed incomes. It is not easy to say that the problem is that we have not spent enough over the years on our services and that we have got to up the money to cover the social services this year. That really hurts those at the other end of the range—the elderly and the vulnerable. We need much more help than is offered in the local government financial settlement for 2002–03, and I urge the Minister to consider funding for children's social services in particular.
9.35 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. There is a certain symmetry in being the back marker in this debate because Cambridgeshire has the dubious distinction of receiving the lowest SSA per head of any shire county.
I welcome the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole). We at the other the other end of the A14, as part of the Cambridge to Ipswich corridor, would probably be happy to trade a bit of Cambridge's knowledge, industry and expertise if Cambridge United received a bit of footballing expertise in return. He mentioned higher education expertise, and I recognise that that matters. Given that he thought Cardinal Wolsey was the last person to promote such expertise, perhaps he should have a word with the Lord Chancellor, who seems to see himself in like guise.
I want gently to chide the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and, to be evenhanded, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on their contributions to the debate. It is very interesting to consider the respective SSA per head of shire counties. Hertfordshire, at £774 per head, and Durham, at £771 per head, contrast dramatically with Cambridgeshire at £647 per head for 2002–03. If my hon. Friend reads the report of my little contribution, he will find that one of the pressures on school places in Hertfordshire is that there are those in my constituency, just over the border from Hertfordshire, who are trying to place their children in schools in Hertfordshire, rather than in Cambridgeshire. They do so because Hertfordshire has £270 per pupil more to spend on schools than we do in Cambridgeshire.
Although my hon. Friend may claim a fast-rising population and high relative costs, the population of South Cambridgeshire is among the fastest growing anywhere in the country. The cost of employment, housing and living
388
in Cambridgeshire are at least as high as in many parts of Bedfordshire, Essex and, indeed, Hertfordshire, including Hertford and Stortford, yet those counties receive the area cost adjustment, whereas Cambridgeshire does not.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) remarked on the lack of comment on the area cost adjustment in the debate. He wondered why that was—if for no other reason, it was because I had not spoken at that time. The Minister will recall that the first debate on the Adjournment that I was able to obtain in the House took place in July 1997 and was on the area cost adjustment. One of the more recent—not the most recent—debates on the area cost adjustment took place in January 2001. In response to the debate in July 1997, the Minister said:
"I assure him"—
he was referring to me—
"that we shall study the further surveys carefully and discuss them, as a matter of urgency, with the local government associations. We shall not be precluded from taking decisions at the earliest opportunity about possible adjustments that might be appropriate."—[Official Report, 18 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 670.]
In January 2001, three and a half years later, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), changed the Government's position. She said:
"We are not rushing to make hasty solutions".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 30 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 14WH.]
All that was in pursuance of the commitment made by the then Leader of the Opposition—now the Prime Minister—on 30 April 1997, days before the general election. He said:
"We will review the area cost adjustment in time for the next financial year".
I am afraid that the Minister must understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the shadow Secretary of State, has pressed that matter a little. We have found in the past that, when we have been told that something will be reviewed in time for the next financial year, four years have gone by and nothing has been done. Something must be done about the area cost adjustment. It must reflect costs accurately across the country. The kind of cliff-edge effects that currently occur are unsustainable. Respective costs across the country must be acknowledged.
I shall not continue to describe how that change should take place. However, I shall say two things. First, the grants must be disaggregated to district council level—with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), there are big differences between his constituency and mine in Cambridgeshire. It is deeply unsatisfactory that a fast-growing district council, such as South Cambridgeshire district council which is in an area of national importance in terms of development and infrastructure, should have a 2.3 per cent. increase in grant. Not only the county council but the district council—which has such a large planning function—have been woefully under-provided with grant by the Government given the councils' responsibilities.
Methodology may not have changed, but the data have. It is unsatisfactory, from our point of view in Cambridgeshire, that we have seen another increase in area cost adjustment factors, which had the net effect of

389
taking £300,000 out of Cambridgeshire's relative allocation compared with what would have been allocated in 2000–01 when the previous factors applied.
The Minister referred to the importance of using the latest data. Data from 16 October 2001 was used for the council tax. Therefore, when the local authority's resources were assessed for the purposes of grant, up-to-date data were being used. However, when population was assessed, estimates for 30 June 2000 were used. For somewhere such as South Cambridgeshire, the difference between the estimate of a 1.3 per cent. increase in population per annum and the actual increase in population of more than 1.5 per cent. meant that that increase was not reflected in the allocation of grant.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the implications for council tax. I agree with what was said about the stress being put on local authorities as council tax reflects an increasing proportion of the cost of providing services. The same is true in relation to the national non-domestic rate, because of a 9.8 per cent. increase this year. The product of that rate is a further burden on businesses.
Cambridgeshire county council is currently consulting on the basis of a 9.8 per cent. council tax increase, and the district council is considering anything up to a 40 per cent. increase—from £50 to £70. We discussed the police, who are considering an increase of 20 or 30 per cent. to sustain their position. The net result could be an overall increase of £95 in band D council tax this year, which is the equivalent of nearly £2 per week.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire rightly said in his opening speech, a very high proportion of the additional money being provided to those on fixed incomes—through the basic state pension, for example—could be taken up next year by the increases in council tax, much of which is a product of distortions in the Government grant distribution system.
9.44 pm
Mr. Moss: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I begin by complimenting the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) on his maiden speech. He spoke authoritatively on local government finance and shared his experience and expertise of local government with us. He was gracious and generous in his comments about his predecessor who was an assiduous Member of the House and achieved much for his constituency. The hon. Gentleman showed that he is a worthy successor.
The debate has been useful. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) that, given the enormity of the money involved as a proportion of total Government spending, it is ridiculous that we have only three hours to debate local government finance when we spend almost a week on the Budget.
Many hon. Members took the Minister up on his promises, especially to review the SSA and, by implication, the area cost adjustment. I intended to mention my experience of the area cost adjustment in Cambridge, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) took care of that authoritatively. It makes no sense to have the cliff-edge syndrome, as he described it, in which one side of the
390
county boundary receives substantially more money per pupil than the other. That needs to be addressed. The hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) also mentioned that.
The Minister said that the SSA is unfortunately so complicated that only boffins in anoraks can understand it and, by implication, that he, perhaps, did not. [Interruption.] If any hon. Member can tell me that they understand the formula in the report, I shall willingly take my cheque book out. It is extremely complicated and we wish the Minister good speed in coming up with something that is agreeable to all. I suspect, however, that he is setting himself an impossible task and that those who have suffered low SSAs will be disappointed when the fruits of the reorganisation do not materialise as they expect.
There were recurrent themes on both sides of the Chamber. The crisis in social services was emphasised in particular. We all know that that is a problem not just for local government funding and local government, but for government as a whole. We would be more than happy to co-operate with the Government to consider that in a broader perspective so that social services are given the right funding without necessarily making councils rob Peter to pay Paul.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) mentioned best value. My hon. Friend also raised problems of ring-fenced funding, as did the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe. The important point was made that if 80 per cent. of local government money is funded by the Government and 15 per cent. of that goes to specific grants, that reduces significantly the flexibility of every council to pursue its responsibility to ensure that it has a balanced approach to the provision of services across the board.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon also mentioned the transfer of funding for post-16 education. That has not been calculated correctly. I know that the Government have made some adjustments from the initial announcements made late last year, but some councils still believe that they have been penalised because of the inadequate compensation. The floors and ceilings mechanism was not universally welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is possible that the Government are devising a crude way to even out differences, especially in relation to the area cost adjustment.
We will not seek to divide the House on the report. We want money to go to local councils as soon as possible and cannot understand why the Liberal Democrats want to vote against the Government. Perhaps the Government should sit on their hands. Liberal Democrats might then have the difficulty of explaining to their local councils why there is no money in the budgets next week.
9.49 pm
Mr. Raynsford: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply. We have had a good, thorough and extensive debate, which has covered a wide range of issues. I shall try to do justice in the short time available to the many speeches that we have heard.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), speaking for the official Opposition, deftly tried to damn me either way by picking up my remark

391
about the complexity of the system and the fact that it was probably only intelligible to anoraks; he then suggested that probably even I did not understand it. If I agree, I condemn myself for not understanding the system; if I do not, I condemn myself as an anorak. Either way, I cannot get out of that. [Interruption.] I ask Members to wait until the end of the speech before judging.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who opened the debate from the Back Benches, welcomed the real-terms increase in grant and highlighted some specific questions from Leicester, particularly the addition of 488 pupils to the school register since the annual census, largely as a result of the influx of Somalis from Holland. That unique and special problem will be considered by the education funding strategy group. However, we cannot make an immediate change to a formula which has been generally agreed and will not be changed in the course of this year. We understand the problem and shall obviously look at it.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, acknowledged that the grant increase was generous overall, but expressed concern, as many Members did, about particular difficulties in relation to social services. I acknowledged that issue in my opening remarks. The hon. Gentleman highlighted failings in the grant distribution formula which, as he knows, we have pledged to replace. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole), in an impressive maiden speech, paid tribute to his predecessor, Jamie Cann, whom we all miss; he was an assiduous Member of Parliament, as well as an assiduous and dedicated leader of Ipswich borough council before coming here. We all miss him. My hon. Friend highlighted the importance of community leadership and spoke with knowledge and authority about the financial pressures on local authorities; I am sure that he will contribute authoritatively to many future debates on the subject in the House.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), in a characteristically thoughtful speech, remembered his own days in the post that I currently occupy. I have been thinking about him; when I went to meet the LGA after the publication of the provisional settlement, it began by reminding me of its meeting with the right hon. Gentleman six years ago, which he opened with the words, "We've all been stuffed by the Treasury." I am pleased that that was not the experience this year.
Mr. Curry: I am delighted to have afforded much innocent pleasure over many years to many people in local government, who no doubt have a great nostalgia for the Minister who was honest. The right hon. Gentleman and I have shared the occasional glass of something and the occasional meal. Now and again, we have mused about the behaviour of the Treasury; in those conversations, I have not noticed a sharp difference in view between us.
Mr. Raynsford: I look forward to continuing this conversation with the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps over another glass of wine one evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made a powerful case for the reform of the standard spending assessment to end the disparity in the treatment of different counties, particularly his own. That is a
392
complex issue, which I shall pick up when I deal with the contributions of other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) criticised the best value regime, which is not surprising, given that he was very much committed to the discredited compulsory competitive tendering regime, which it replaced. There is no appetite in local government for returning to CCT. We shall continue to refine and improve the best value regime; as it beds in, and as we cut out unnecessary complexity which, I accept, has been present in the early stages, there will be genuine benefits in driving up services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) made a passionate case for the reform of the SSA system, which has particularly disadvantaged areas of great need in south Yorkshire and neighbouring areas. He mentioned a perverse incentive in the current housing benefit arrangements, and said that reduction in fraud could reduce local authorities' grant entitlement. We accept that that is a fair point and we will examine it in the formula review.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) highlighted the difficulties facing his county. There is no question but that there is real pressure there in relation to social services, which I have acknowledged in discussion with him. The grant increase for County Durham is 5.6 per cent. It is a little lower than the shire county average of 6.1 per cent., but it is a good increase, well above inflation, and compares with 3.2 per cent. last year. It involves an additional £15.8 million for County Durham.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) drew attention to social services pressures in her area and also to the matter of refrigerators. The £6 million Government grant is designed to cover the cost of storage of fridges up until March this year—only in the period from January to March—and should not be confused with an annual figure. We will consider the position urgently and determine what further action is required beyond March to help deal with the issue. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) also presented the problems facing county councils and in doing so highlighted the dilemma. Whatever changes we make to the formula, there will inevitably be some authorities that receive less than others, either per capita or in an overall figure. That is the nature of a formula system for distribution of grant.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that a formula system is better than an arbitrary system of allocation by ministerial fiat. He has drawn attention to the problem that arises when a formula is used. I do not underestimate the difficulties of trying to create a fairer and better system in the future than the one that we have at present, but I believe that we can make progress in simplifying the system, making it slightly less opaque than it is, and addressing some of the genuine unfairnesses that are inherent in the current arrangement.
The report that we have debated this evening confirms a generous settlement which gives an average increase of 7.5 per cent. in funding for local authorities in England. Some speakers criticised aspects of the settlement or expressed concerns about the current position in their constituency, but almost all acknowledged that this year's settlement is generous. It is not a panacea for all local

393
authority problems. We recognise the very real pressures that local authorities face, not least in respect of social services, but it is a settlement that gives real-term increases in grant to the vast majority of authorities and a guaranteed increase of at least inflation for every authority in England.
How very different was the experience that local government had under the previous Government. The average grant increase in the last five years of the Tory Government was just 2 per cent. per annum—just 2 per cent. per annum over that five-year period. Since 1997, we have seen an average of 6 per cent. per annum, and this year the increase is 7.5 per cent.
This is a good settlement from a Government who are committed to local government and to forging a new relationship with local government. We recognise the hugely important contribution that local government makes to meeting local needs and delivering services to people in its area. We are determined to work in partnership with local government and to help local authorities meet their responsibilities and deliver to their residents the high quality services that their residents expect and need.
We are making real progress in establishing a far better and more positive relationship with local government—a relationship based on trust, the removal of unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy, giving greater freedoms to local authorities, and putting that in the context of a performance management system that will drive up standards. The ultimate aim is to deliver high quality services to people in need. All of us, whether from the local government or central Government perspective, want high quality services to be delivered to the people whom we represent. This is a good settlement, which I commend to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 40.

Division No.149]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

Ainger, Nick

(Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Bryant, Chris

Allen, Graham

Burden, Richard

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

Burnham, Andy

(Swansea E)

Cairns, David

Atkins, Charlotte

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Austin, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Bailey, Adrian

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Baird, Vera

Caplin, Ivor

Barnes, Harry

Caton, Martin

Barron, Kevin

Cawsey, Ian

Battle, John

Challen, Colin

Bayley, Hugh

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Benn, Hilary

Clark, Dr Lynda

Bennett, Andrew

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Berry, Roger

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Best, Harold

Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

Betts, Clive

(Norwich S)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Blizzard, Bob

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Clelland, David

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Clwyd, Ann

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Coaker, Vernon

Brennan, Kevin

Coffey, Ms Ann

394

Cohen, Harry

Iddon, Dr Brian

Connarty, Michael

Illsley, Eric

Corston, Jean

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cranston, Ross

Jamieson, David

Crausby, David

Jenkins, Brian

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Joyce, Eric

David, Wayne

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Davidson, Ian

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Kidney, David

(B'ham Hodge H)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dawson, Hilton

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Denham, Rt Hon John

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Dobbin, Jim

Laxton, Bob

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Lazarowicz, Mark

Donohoe, Brian H

Lepper, David

Doran, Frank

Leslie, Christopher

Dowd, Jim

Levitt, Tom

Drew, David

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Linton, Martin

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Lloyd, Tony

Ennis, Jeff

Lucas, Ian

Etherington, Bill

Luke, Iain

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Lyons, John

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

McAvoy, Thomas

Flint, Caroline

McCabe, Stephen

Flynn, Paul

McCafferty, Chris

Follett, Barbara

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McDonagh, Siobhain

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

McDonnell, John

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

MacDougall, John

Foulkes, George

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Galloway, George

McIsaac, Shona

Gapes, Mike

McKechin, Ann

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

McKenna, Rosemary

Gerrard, Neil

McNamara, Kevin

Gibson, Dr Ian

McNulty, Tony

Gilroy, Linda

MacShane, Denis

Godsiff, Roger

Mactaggart, Fiona

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McWalter, Tony

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McWilliam, John

Grogan, John

Mahmood, Khalid

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Mallaber, Judy

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hanson, David

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Havard, Dai

Martlew, Eric

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Hendrick, Mark

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Hepburn, Stephen

Miliband, David

Heppell, John

Miller, Andrew

Hesford, Stephen

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Heyes, David

Moffatt, Laura

Hill, Keith

Mole, Chris

Hinchliffe, David

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hoey, Kate

Moran, Margaret

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Morley, Elliot

Hope, Phil

Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

Hopkins, Kelvin

Mudie, George

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Mullin, Chris

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Munn, Ms Meg

Howells, Dr Kim

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Naysmith, Dr Doug

395

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Southworth, Helen

O'Hara, Edward

Spellar, Rt Hon John

Olner, Bill

Squire, Rachel

Organ, Diana

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Owen, Albert

Stinchcombe, Paul

Pearson, Ian

Stoate, Dr Howard

Picking, Anne

Stringer, Graham

Pickthall, Colin

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pike, Peter

Tami, Mark

Pollard, Kerry

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

Pond, Chris

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Pope, Greg

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Timms, Stephen

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Tipping, Paddy

Primarolo, Dawn

Todd, Mark

Prosser, Gwyn

Touhig, Don

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Truswell, Paul

Rapson, Syd

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Tynan, Bill

Robertson, John

Vis, Dr Rudi

(Glasgow Anniesland)

Ward, Ms Claire

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Wareing, Robert N

Rooney, Terry

Watson, Tom

Ross, Ernie

Watts, David

Roy, Frank

White, Brian

Ruane, Chris

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Ruddock, Joan

Wicks, Malcolm

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Winnick, David

Savidge, Malcolm

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Sawford, Phil

Woodward, Shaun

Sedgemore, Brian

Woolas, Phil

Shaw, Jonathan

Worthington, Tony

Sheerman, Barry

Wray, James

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wright, David (Telford)

Skinner, Dennis

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Wyatt, Derek

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Tellers for the Ayes

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Angela Smith and Dan Norris.

Soley, Clive

NOES

Allan, Richard

Hancock, Mike

Barrett, John

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Beggs, Roy

Heath, David

Breed, Colin

Hermon, Lady

Burnett, John

Holmes, Paul

Burstow, Paul

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Keetch, Paul

Carmichael, Alistair

Lamb, Norman

Cotter, Brian

Laws, David

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Moore, Michael

Doughty, Sue

Pugh, Dr John

Foster, Don (Bath)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Gidley, Sandra

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

396

Sanders, Adrian

Webb, Steve

Shepherd, Richard

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Stunell, Andrew

Younger-Ross, Richard

Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Tellers for the Noes:

Thurso, John

Mr. A. J. Beith and Mrs. Annette L. Brooke.

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Question accordingly agreed to
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2002–03 (HC 545), which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.

PETITIONS

  Eye Clinics
  10.12 pm
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to present this petition tonight on behalf of the people of Bromsgrove and Redditch. They are concerned about the prospective loss of their eye clinics, especially given that they raised some £70,000 to pay for eye treatment to be delivered locally. The petition of the people of Bromsgrove and Redditch declares:
  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust proposes to transfer the eye clinics at the Alexandra Hospital, Redditch and the Princess of Wales Community Hospital, Bromsgrove to Kidderminster and Worcester; that the eye scanners used in both clinics were bought by funds raised through a public appeal to the residents of Bromsgrove and Redditch, organised by the Bromsgrove Advertiser/Messenger and Redditch Advertiser; and they object to the loss of this valuable service.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to review the proposals and ensure that the eye clinics remain in the communities they were established to serve.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Crown Post Office
  10.13 pm
  Geraint Davies: This petition is presented by the residents of Croydon and others, supported by more than 4,000 people. It declares that the petitioners object to the Post Office's proposal to close east Croydon's Crown post office and states:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take appropriate action to ensure East Croydon Crown Post Office remains open.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Inner Cities
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
  10.14 pm
  John Robertson: It gives me great pleasure to have secured this debate, and I want to focus on how we should strive to break the cycle of poverty in our inner cities. Poverty manifests itself in a number of ways: lack of access to good-quality housing, poor health, high levels of unemployment, low rates of pay, high crime rates, and poor educational performance. Unlike the Tories, the Labour party believes that poverty breeds further poverty, that unemployment can lead to crime, and that living in poor, overcrowded housing can result in poor health and have a detrimental effect on a child's education. Each aspect of poverty is linked, and we cannot effectively tackle one aspect without tackling all of them.
  I want to use the debate to focus on the effects of unemployment on our inner cities, and to consider how poverty affects pensioners, who have passed employment age, and children, who have yet to reach it. I shall focus on my constituency, but I shall also use our experiences in Glasgow to examine the position more broadly in Scotland and in the United Kingdom as a whole. Above all, I want to use this opportunity to pose questions and to offer solutions.
  Our children are our future, so tackling childhood poverty is crucial, not least because our children need and deserve to grow up in a secure and protective environment, and because childhood experience lays the foundations for later life. Children's experiences and their outcomes in later life are fundamentally influenced by their family circumstances. Children growing up in low-income households are more likely to have poor health, do badly at school, get involved in crime and later in life become unemployed and earn lower wages. That is why I welcome the pre-Budget report "Tackling child poverty".
  I welcome the excellent start that the Government have made. Families with children in the poorest fifth of the population are now on average £1,700 a year better off. There have been increases in child benefit, and the introduction of the children's tax credit has been announced. There are now 1.2 million fewer children in poverty as a result of the measures that we have introduced since 1997. If we are to reach our target of halving child poverty by 2010, we must ensure that this programme continues, that progress is regularly monitored, and that the initiatives are implemented as a result of changing circumstances.
  I should now like to consider how poverty affects our pensioners. My constituency has one of the highest concentrations of people aged over 60, not only in the UK but in Europe. Almost a third of the electorate are over the age of 60. I wholeheartedly welcome initiatives such as the minimum income guarantee and the pensioner credit, which have taken some of our poorest pensioners out of poverty.
  Although I realise that the introduction of the stakeholder pension will ensure that future pensioners have an income that will protect them, a great many elderly people in Glasgow, Anniesland do not have any pension other than the state pension. The Government
  398
  must ensure not only that we protect future pensioners, but that the needs of today's pensioners are recognised and addressed.
  Approaches are being taken to ensure that successful regeneration is shared by our citizens and, in particular, helps unemployed people get back into work. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) has an Adjournment debate on Friday, and she will draw attention to the problem of unemployment in Glasgow. I shall focus on a few key areas.
  I have had a long-standing interest in schemes designed to reduce unemployment, particularly the intermediate labour market and transitional employment initiatives. The Wise group pioneered the ILM approach in Glasgow some 18 years ago, and local authority housing was insulated and improved at the same time. From 1996 to 2001, ILM projects in Glasgow ensured that some 7,500 long-term unemployed people found jobs.
  Glasgow's economy has been doing rather well in recent years. The number of jobs in the city rose by 8 per cent. between 1996 and 2001—from 346,000 to 375,000, which is an increase of 29,000 jobs. Over the same period, the number of jobs in Scotland as a whole grew by only 0.2 per cent. Registered unemployment in Glasgow has fallen from 32,000 in 1996 to the current figure of 18,000, which is a fall of 44 per cent. compared with 34 per cent. for Scotland as a whole.
  Despite that initially positive picture, it must be remembered that the starting point is poor. The unemployment rate in Anniesland is 6.9 per cent., more than double the national average, and some areas in Glasgow still have some of the worst unemployment levels in the United Kingdom. Despite a recent upturn in its economic performance, parts of Glasgow are missing out. In its deprived areas there are social inclusion partnerships, known as SIPs, where additional help is given. There are two SIP areas in Anniesland, but that is not enough.
  In some parts of Glasgow the average employment rate is only 33 per cent., compared with a Scottish average of 78 per cent. The employment rate in Glasgow as a whole is only 58 per cent. Why are parts of the city not benefiting from the recent economic upturn? One reason is that about half the jobs belong to commuters, who work in Glasgow but do not live there. The other main reason, on which I shall focus, relates to the large number of people receiving some form of income support.
  In 1999, 19,000 people were officially registered unemployed but more than double that number—39,000—were claiming incapacity benefit. A further 19,000 were receiving lone parent premium, and 42,000 were receiving other benefits. That amounts to a grand total of 119,000. The officially defined unemployed form only 16 per cent. of the total number of unemployed people in the city.
  That is partly due to the last Government's manipulation of the unemployment figures. They deliberately moved people out of those figures, and into the benefit figures. Those unregistered unemployed people would be better described as the hidden unemployed. Incapacity benefit claimants, in particular, significantly outnumber the officially registered unemployed in Glasgow. Even if we accept that many of the hidden unemployed could work given suitable support and opportunities and that real medical, physical or social

  399
  reasons prevent many others from entering the labour market, that still leaves a large number who are unemployed and capable of work, but not included in the official unemployment figures.
  Some may ask whether this really matters. I happen to think that it does. If Glasgow's employment rate is to get anywhere near the Scottish average, we must find ways of helping the hidden unemployed to get into work. Glasgow needs more of its people to be actively engaged in the labour market.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Is not one of the barriers the high rent and council tax in Glasgow? The loss of rebates is a serious disincentive to becoming employed. Glasgow city council has come up with a useful proposal that would allow them to be continued for those who stay in work, but a council tax cut is also needed. Glasgow needs a fair share of the money that is available.
  John Robertson: That is an excellent point. It is part of the reason why people get into such a state with the benefits system. My hon. Friend has obviously read part of my speech, although I did not let him see it in advance.
  At present most schemes designed to help unemployed people are restricted to the officially registered unemployed, but in Glasgow, as I have said, there are far more unregistered unemployed residents. Many more unemployed people, both registered and unregistered, need to work in the city to get near the Scottish average employment rate. Does it make sense for so many Government and European schemes to be artificially restricted to helping jobseekers alone?
  There are some signs that things are changing—for example, the new deal for the disabled with its emphasis on incapacity benefit claimants, and the action teams for jobs with their remit to assist the workless. But given the nature of unemployment in Glasgow and the number of unregistered unemployed people, we need more flexibility to use existing systems or new programmes to help that large group.
  In the 1990s, the economic development agenda in Glasgow tended to focus on measures designed to reduce the official unemployment rate. That agenda needs 21st century ideas to concentrate on a more subtle strategy designed to increase the city's employment rate. Glasgow's economic potential cannot be effectively maximised until we get significantly more of our residents into work. Getting on one's bike to look for work is not the answer for those people. The last Conservative Government caused the problem and the Labour Government need to solve it. ILMs and transitional employment initiatives have a key role in implementing that agenda by focusing on those furthest removed from the labour market—what some call the hard-core, long-term unemployed.
  Some pioneering developments involving ILMs are being developed by Glasgow city council in partnership with other local agencies. A proposal called the Glasgow full employment initiative is being developed, which aims to create full employment in specified deprived parts of the city. Each scheme would cover 400 to 500 households.
  Within full employment areas, there would be a commitment that individuals or indeed whole households would be offered a regular job with continued after-care
  400
  support, or a subsidised job with a full wage through an ILM scheme. They would be offered quality support and advice to overcome barriers to employment and full access to and integrated support from all existing employment services already available in the area.
  If people later lost their job, the FEA would start them straight away in other alternative employment, which may be on an ILM scheme. The aim is that people will never again have to go on the dole. In effect, the FEAs would be offering a job guarantee. I would be interested to know whether the Minister can find ways to support that initiative.
  The work of the FEAs will also involve proposals to the Scottish Executive and the UK Government for a pilot actively to use unemployment benefit and/or income support in a benefits transfer package. Technically, the legislation already exists to do that. At present, that is only available to registered unemployed working links clients. Permission will be sought for a benefits transfer pilot to be available to all the unemployed people with the FEA—registered and non-registered unemployed.
  Glasgow's unemployment problems cannot be easily solved without changes at a national level in terms of the welfare structure and the avoidance of benefit traps. However, that does not mean that nothing should be tried locally to achieve full employment in deprived areas.
  I think the Minister will agree that we need more flexible and innovative local labour market measures. We need fewer one-size-fits-all, top-down imposed approaches and we need to break down the artificial barriers that mean that help is available only to the registered unemployed and not to the non-registered unemployed. We need more freedom to explore the active use of unemployment and income support payments to meet individual employment and training needs.
  There is no quick fix or magic cure as regards the best way to relieve poverty for the young, the old or, for that matter, the long-term, hard-core unemployed. For those furthest removed from the labour market, we will continue to need an array of different approaches and measures. However, I am sure that within the economic development toolkit there will always be a place for ILM or transitional employment type measures. The Minister will, I hope, be interested in what I have said about Glasgow's latest efforts in that regard.
  The old adages, "No experience, no work" and "You need a job to get a job" still hold true for many people in Glasgow and other UK cities, particularly those furthest removed from the labour market. Because ILMs tackle that issue head on and provide unemployed people with much needed work experience, they must continue to be a major plank in economic development policies for cities. ILMs are not competing with the work first approaches of the employment zones or action teams for jobs. Instead they should be seen as complementary. Indeed, why not refer all those people who are failing to get jobs through the employment zones, action teams for jobs or the new deal to an ILM straight away?
  I have raised important questions and, I hope, some solutions. They are a blueprint not just for Glasgow; I believe they could be developed in any of our inner cities. To use that much used saying, much has been done but there is much to do. I want to see this Government do it.
  10.30 pm
  The Minister for Pensions(Mr. Ian McCartney): Good evening, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing a debate on inner-city poverty. I am also grateful for his kind comments on the Government's initiatives to tackle child and pensioner poverty, and the general poverty of those of working age. This debate is a unique experience, because I see in their places my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons), for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin), for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) and your good self, Mr. Speaker, representing your beloved Springburn. My accent tends to give away my previous incarnation and even my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) can claim that his mother was born in Cathcart. He just failed to get across the border and was born in Carlisle. My only question is where is the Scottish National party? We are debating strategies to end poverty in Scotland and the SNP is not even here.
  We are absolutely committed to eradicating child poverty by 2020. Our strategy is outlined in "Opportunity for all", the annual report that sets out our progress. Significant progress has been made, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. Anniesland made clear, much more remains to be done. There is a clear political commitment to tackling the problems of poverty and social exclusion. Poverty and social exclusion are complex, multidimensional issues and are not just about low income. My hon. Friend highlighted that point eloquently in his contribution this evening.
  We are determined to ensure that there is opportunity for all, not just the privileged few. Tackling poverty is not just a social objective or a moral issue. It is also an economic necessity, because we all pay the price of poverty. Research shows that work is the best route out of poverty. Our strategy is to provide work for those who can and security for those who cannot. We are making real progress. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's speech and to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok and I am very interested in the initiatives they described. I give my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland a commitment that I will arrange for officials from Glasgow city council and from the Scottish Executive to meet officials from my Department to explore these proposals further. I will write to him when I have made those arrangements, which I hope to do shortly so that we can take forward the ideas that he set out tonight.
  It is clear that the measures that we have already introduced are having positive effects on people's lives. We will continue to work to improve the opportunities available to all people looking for work. Today, as a result of a stable economy and measures to help people into jobs, some 300,000 fewer children live in a household where no one works. We are introducing new tax credits to tackle poverty and make work pay.
  There are more than 1.2 million more people in work now than in 1997. We have increased the household incomes of 2 million of the poorest pensioners by at least £15 a week since 1997. We are tackling the legacy of
  402
  poverty and social exclusion that we inherited. We are making progress, but, as my hon. Friend said, it has been slow and painstakingly difficult in some areas.
  Mr. John Lyons (Strathkelvin and Bearsden): Will my right hon. Friend accept that the national minimum wage, presently £4.10, has played a constructive part not only in bringing people from unemployment to work, but in giving them some security when they take up work? We should try to uprate it regularly because that would make it more attractive for people to take up work.
  Mr. McCartney: As the Minister who introduced the national minimum wage, I am more than happy to endorse my hon. Friend's observation that, together with the working families tax credit and the changes in child benefit, the national minimum wage has made a significant difference. Women in my constituency were earning £1.20 an hour; after the introduction of the minimum wage and the WFTC they now have incomes of £11 an hour and four weeks' paid holiday. The minimum wage has risen consistently since its introduction, following the recommendations from the Low Pay Commission. We have also given the lie to the Tory claim that its introduction would cost a million jobs. Since its introduction, we have created more than a million jobs.
  I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and I will tell my father tonight that his Member of Parliament is doing a damn good job for him—although at 82 I am not sure that he wants to go out and earn the national minimum wage.
  Colleagues, we have set clear objectives that require long-term commitment to year-on-year investment. They need more than just a short-term investment. For people of working age, we are rebuilding the welfare state around work, for both individuals and families. As I said earlier, paid work is the best form of welfare. It is the most secure means of averting poverty and dependence.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the drug culture in many Scottish communities is also one of the aspects of poverty that has to be addressed?
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. From bitter personal experience, I know that the drug culture in Scotland damages communities and families, and that it tragically destroys many young people's lives. Across Britain, 3,000 young people a year die from drug abuse. To destroy that culture, there must be action in the community against the criminal. That action must involve young people and investment in treatment and rehabilitation. Part of the rehabilitation culture must be the introduction of young people to education, training and employment opportunities.
  The drugs problem is prevalent in the east end of Glasgow, where initiatives have been set up similar to those in other parts of Glasgow described by hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland. I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South in that regard.
  We are also changing the culture of the benefits system. We are moving away from a strategy based on the question "What money can we pay you?", to one based

  403
  on the questions "How can we help you become more independent? How can we help families to help themselves? How can we help communities to rebuild and regenerate themselves, and to develop a self-confidence and a feeling of self-worth and commitment?"
  Our approach works on two fronts—making it easier to move into work, and ensuring that work pays. One of the problems facing people moving into work is the gap between their final benefit payment and their first pay cheque. That is why we have introduced initiatives to ease this transition. Examples of that are the simplification of the housing and council tax benefit of the mortgage interest run-on, the lone parent's benefit run-on and the job grant.
  We have introduced a number of measures to ensure that when people take up work, that work pays. Mention has been made of the working families tax credit and the national minimum wage. The House may want to know that, since the working families tax credit was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, 120,000 families in Scotland have benefited. Moreover, 110,000 families in Scotland are benefiting from the national minimum wage. The combination of both those innovations means that no family with one person working full-time earns less than about £11,000 a year. That is a major step forward.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland pointed out, the Government have had great success with reducing unemployment. Since 1997, we have reduced long-term unemployment by more than 50 per cent. in Glasgow in general, and in the Anniesland constituency in particular.
  Nearly 6,500 young people have found work in Glasgow through the new deal. Another 1,000 long-term unemployed have moved into work through the new deal 25 plus scheme.
  We are constantly improving these new deals to help clients to match their current skills to vacancies in the labour market. New deals also help clients to gain new skills through education and training to meet the needs of local employers.
  As we announced in November, we will soon be launching our pilots for our new StepUp programmes. In April, a pilot will start in east Ayrshire and another pilot will begin later in Edinburgh. These pilots will test out the provision of transitional jobs to act as a stepping stone for long-term unemployed people moving from benefits into work. In his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland asked the Government to consider that matter specifically.
  We have also introduced employment zones to help long-term unemployed people in some of the most deprived areas. Employment zones are looking at innovative ways to find local solutions to local problems. The employment zone in Glasgow works with local organisations such as the Wise group, and has already helped nearly 2,000 people find work.
  I also agree with my hon. Friend that our focus needs to be wider than just those traditionally classed as unemployed. We must look to help more jobless people who would like to move into the labour market. We have launched 56 pathfinder offices for our new service, Jobcentre Plus, and their locations include Aberdeen, Livingston, Greenock and Port Glasgow. The offices will be rolled out over the next few years across the whole of Scotland.
  404
  This new service will give all benefit claimants the opportunity to find out about the help and support available to them if they move into work through work-focused interviews. Lone parents whose youngest child is of school age already benefit from having a work-focused interview at the start of their claim for income support. From April, these interviews will be extended to lone parents whose youngest child is three years old or older.
  All lone parents who are out of work can benefit from our new deal for lone parents. This offers specialist help and advice to enable them to take up work. By the end of October, we had already helped more than 2,200 lone parents in Glasgow, and in Anniesland nearly 300 lone parents have been assisted in taking up employment.
  Specialist help is also available for people on incapacity benefit through our new deal for disabled people. During the pilot phase, more than 8,200 people have been helped into work. In the summer, we launched a national network of job brokers who work with people on incapacity benefit to help them access the labour market.
  These national programmes are complemented by our action teams for jobs. The teams work with local organisations to find innovative solutions to problems faced by people from disadvantaged groups such as those with disabilities, lone parents, homeless people and people with drug or alcohol problems. The action team in Glasgow was so successful at the start of this year that the team has been split into four and their collective budget has been increased by more than 700 per cent. to one in excess of £3.5 million.
  That demonstrates our clear and specific strategy on employment. It works alongside initiatives taken by Glasgow and the communities there to develop self-help and a co-ordinated approach between central Government, local government and the community to the regeneration and refurbishment of communities for individual families and the community as a whole.
  In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend alluded to the need for the Government to end pensioner poverty and design new systems to end it. He is absolutely right. Our pension strategy is simple: we want to ensure that all pensioners have a decent income in retirement. That is why it was important to introduce the minimum income guarantee, rough and ready as it was. We have been the first Government for two generations to take a positive decision to target elderly people who were being left out of the basic pension system and, as a consequence, were living in poverty. From a standing start, almost 2 million elderly people now receive on average between £15 and £20 a week that would never have been available to them had we not taken action. However, that was a short-term action; to deal with poverty now, we must modernise a pensions system to prevent future pensioners from falling into poverty.
  In their Lordships' House is the State Pension Credit Bill which will soon come before this House. The Bill is about modernising the whole basis and concept of the pensions system, so that it will ensure a minimum guaranteed income for all pensioners, irrespective of how they access the pensions system, as well as for millions of hard-working pensioners who, under the current system

  405
  and particularly under the Tories, were trapped at 100 per cent. for having small savings and small second pensions. The modernised state system will not only pay their basic minimum guarantee but will pay them extra for having small savings. They will benefit from having small savings or a small second pension.
  In addition, we will take steps to assist people who work for employers have no form of pension savings. From a standing start, in the first seven months 80 per cent. of employers required to register for stakeholder pensions have registered. The big task is to turn those registrations into pension entitlements for many people who last year, before stakeholder pensions, had no pension opportunity. This year they have a pension opportunity.
  406
  The Government's step-by-step approach is working, but we cannot beat poverty in a few years. We certainly cannot beat poverty—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  CORRECTION
  Official Report, 28 January 2004: In col. 125 after "Clause read a Second" delete, "added to the Bill"
Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Football Club Funding
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ben Chapman.]
9.30 am
Roger Casale: I have called this debate because, like the Football Foundation, I believe that football clubs belong in their local communities. I believe also that the foundation may have a role to play in helping my local team, Wimbledon FC, come home to my local community of Wimbledon.
Since it was launched in July 2000, the Football Foundation has helped clubs and communities across Britain to improve their grass-roots facilities, purchase new equipment and develop a broader base for their activities. The foundation is the United Kingdom's largest sports charity. Its annual budget of £53 million is made available by the Government, Sport England, the Premier League and the Football Association itself. The foundation is responsible also for the football stadia improvement fund, an independent funding body that is continuing the stadium development work of the Football Trust.
In 2001, the foundation gave grants that ranged from £2,000 to help a football in the community scheme achieve charitable status in Walsall, to £221,151 to establish a youth development programme at West Bromwich Albion. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich Albion, East (Mr. Watson) is here today. He will be able to tell us a little more about that excellent scheme.
Grants as large as £2 million and loans of as much as £800,000 may be available through the football stadia improvement fund to build a new stadium for Wimbledon FC. By itself, even £2.8 million would not be enough to build a new stadium there, but it would certainly help. The money would be a massive public subsidy to the owners of the club. It would represent the premium to be paid for bringing the Dons back home, instead of allowing them to sever their links with the local community. I believe that such an investment by the Football Foundation could tip the balance towards building a new stadium in Merton and away from the club moving to Milton Keynes.
Over the past few months, the plight of Wimbledon FC has become something of a cause célèbre. For instance, 105 Members of Parliament have signed early-day motion 570, including the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who speaks for the Opposition. I tabled the motion in protest at the club's refusal to accept a Football League decision not to allow it to move to Milton Keynes. While preparing for the debate, I looked through the last 250 or so early-day motions, and only those relating to the tension between India and Pakistan raised a similar level of interest and concern.
The motion has the full support of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen), who is chairman of the all-party football group. I take this
66WH
opportunity to thank him publicly for his courtesy in inviting the officers of the Wimbledon independent supporters association to put their case against the relocation of the club to the all-party football group. The parliamentary campaign that we have been building together has complemented and built upon the groundswell of support for Wimbledon's cause among football fans across the country. More than 80 clubs were represented at a Fans United day that Wimbledon independent supporters association organised at Selhurst park in November. The passion, energy and sheer resilience that Wimbledon fans have shown week in, week out are a credit to the game. Under the chairmanship of Kris Stewart, they continue to fight a remarkable campaign to stop the move to Milton Keynes. They produce their own quality alternative programme each match day and have drawn up plans for a new stadium. On 10 February, they will set up a new supporters trust—the Dons Trust—to promote the club's return to Wimbledon. They have been ground down by the club's campaign to move to Milton Keynes, but they will not be worn out, and the fight will go on.
Football lovers everywhere understand that allowing clubs to move to areas beyond their traditional fan-base creates a dangerous precedent.
Brian White: My hon. Friend may be aware that many famous clubs have moved. The logic of his argument is that Arsenal should return to Woolwich and—God forbid!—that Manchester United should return to Manchester.
Roger Casale: I am sure that we shall have many variations on that theme during the debate.
Wimbledon is a wonderful club, and everyone understands why people would want it in their community. In today's circumstances, the link between football clubs and their local communities is more important than ever. We have limited influence over clubs' plans and decision-making processes, but we should do everything that we can to influence decisions through the Government and organisations such as the Football Foundation. We should promote the return of football clubs to their traditional fan-bases, their local and historic homes and their local communities.
Allowing clubs to move could lead to football franchising. Teams would be hawked around the country to the highest bidder, with scant regard to supporters' interests or clubs' long-term well-being. In a statement issued yesterday, the Football Supporters Association said that it hoped that the Football League would remain as implacably opposed to franchise football as it has been up until now.
A striking number of parliamentary colleagues lent their signatures to the early-day motion, even though they had no direct interest in football. They did so because they understood that football clubs belong in their respective local communities, whose identity is often inextricably linked to the memory of a club, to its history and traditions and to the role that it played in the area.
Wimbledon's FA cup triumph over Liverpool in 1988—I look cautiously around the Room to see whether any Liverpool supporters are present—is still as fresh as a rose in the minds of local people. It represents

67WH
an unrivalled high point in our civic and community life in recent years. It is difficult to talk about the history of my constituency without mentioning the ups and downs in the life of Wimbledon FC, and I am sure that many parliamentary colleagues with football clubs in their constituencies will feel the same.
Wimbledon FC has strong roots in the local community and has one of the most extensive community programmes in the Football League. It recently won a prestigious sports match award for its outstanding work over many years with young people across south-west London. I always enjoy my discussions with the Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), about who has the best "football in the community" scheme.
The argument about clubs and their local communities resonates strongly with the Football Foundation, which was set up to promote that link. That argument should also resonate strongly with the Government. After all, it was the Government who set up the Football Trust and, later, the Football Foundation to strengthen the links between football clubs and their local communities.
The Government's football taskforce, which was chaired by David Mellor, recommended in paragraph 1.9 of its report that there was a need to balance the interests of all those in or touched by football, and for the game to promote to as wide a community as possible its sporting aims and key values. On whether football clubs could be run like any other business, the report said that the essential premise of the taskforce was that football, and indeed sport, was different from other business sectors. As a business, the club belongs to its shareholders and owners, but in a powerful sense the club belongs to the supporters and local communities too.
I am sorry if my argument does not chime with that of my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) and for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). I hope that the Milton Keynes football club, Milton Keynes City, will hear of the debate and realise that the Football Foundation and the Government are on the side of football in the community, whether the clubs are large or small.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I simply want to point out that Milton Keynes City wholly supports the move of Wimbledon FC to Milton Keynes. It sees the move as extremely advantageous to all existing football teams in the town, and wants to work with a professional club.
Roger Casale: I have received no representations from Milton Keynes City. I have tried to contact it, but I am delighted, and not surprised, that my hon. Friend is in touch with the club. Some members of that club may want, in the great snakes and ladders of competitive football, to advance suddenly from the Conference into the Nationwide first division. They should recall the proud tradition, history, struggle and achievements of a club such as Wimbledon. More than 20 years ago, outside support, investment and encouragement set
68WH
Wimbledon FC on the road that took it to Wembley and more than 10 years in the Premiership as a top-flight club. That was not an easy road, but every club can still try to take it, including Milton Keynes City.
Yesterday, an arbitration panel referred the decision about the future of Wimbledon FC back to the Football League. That decision will add to the agony of Wimbledon supporters who have campaigned against the move, and I hope that the Football League will now move swiftly to solve the problem once and for all. I tend to take a positive view of what happened yesterday because, with that decision, we have won a period of respite. We have an opportunity to regroup the parties interested in bringing Wimbledon FC back home to Wimbledon where it belongs, and to find a solution to the problem.
It is important that all those who want the club to return to its local community use the time properly while the Football League reconsiders the matter. The community, Merton borough council—and its leader, Andrew Judge—Wimbledon fans and, perhaps, new investors should come together to find a way for each to contribute to bringing the Dons back home. If a suitable site can be found in or near Merton, I am sure that the Football Foundation will want to help. Such a site does exist. It is the site in Plough lane, where the Dons had their original stadium.
Wimbledon has an extraordinary history, rising from the Southern League to lift the FA cup at Wembley and to gain promotion to the Premiership. It caught the imagination and the hearts of millions of football lovers, and millions of people across the land who did not follow or know too much about football. Throughout its meteoric rise, Wimbledon football club played at its modest Plough lane stadium, a site that was bought for the club's use as long ago as 1948 by the then Wimbledon borough council before it became Merton borough council.
In order to comply with the recommendations of the Taylor report, it was necessary to upgrade the stadium. There were inconclusive negotiations with Merton council about alternatives. Sam Hamman, the previous owner and the inspiration for the club's successes, moved Wimbledon football club out of Plough lane; the last game was played there on 4 May 1991. That led to years of inconclusive ground sharing with Crystal Palace at Selhurst park. It is difficult to assess the prospects for the club to return to the borough because the current owners seem so set against such a move.
However, the context is changing. From my perspective—not yet, sadly, from that of the club—it seems that, in some respects, the prospects for a return have never been so good. First, the Plough lane site is back on the market, following a series of unsuccessful planning applications by the present owners, Safeway, to build a supermarket there. Secondly, Merton council is being very supportive and enthusiastic, although that has found little favour with the club. It is worth remembering that, with the changes that have been proposed to local government financing, it will be open to Merton council in the future to invest directly in such a project and to shoulder a proportion of the risk. Thirdly, there might be scope for the Government, acting through the Football Foundation, to offer the campaign to bring the Dons back home some practical and financial support.

69WH
Those of us who wish to see the club return to Wimbledon should be looking to the foundation for five things: short-term financial support to run, as a matter of urgency, an independent feasibility study on the Plough lane site; help with the establishment of Wimbledon FC's planned football academy to develop home-grown talent on the Prince George's playing fields in Raynes Park; assistance in developing further the club's football in the community scheme in local schools; and providing funding—either as a grant or as a loan, or as both—to move the electricity pylon that currently makes the Plough lane site unfeasible, because it overshadows the place where the intended centre circle should be, off the field and out of sight. That would cost around £500,000, but it is not an insurmountable objection in the context of the total amount of money that would be invested in the stadium.
Lastly, and possibly most importantly, we should be finding out how to apply for the £2 million that has been set aside since the Taylor report for Wimbledon FC to upgrade its stadium; that money could be invested in a new stadium site. Of all the clubs for whom such grants were set aside, Wimbledon is the only one that has not spent the money, for the simple reason that, since that time, it has been without a home.
As Members of Parliament, we should examine critically, as we are doing today, the public interest arguments that relate to the award of public money for football clubs, through the foundation and through the football stadiums improvement scheme. It is right that we should ask what the criteria are for allocating such grants, how the grants are followed up and how the decisions are made about where the money is spent. Those criteria are, and must be seen to be, fair and objective. It is not the case, nor is it my purpose in introducing today's debate, that he or she who shouts loudest should be heard. Through their support of the Football Foundation and of the football stadiums improvement scheme, the Government are recognising that football can be a powerful force for good in our society, and looking to harness that power by strengthening and supporting the bond between football clubs and the communities where they belong.
In the case of Wimbledon football club, that will not be achieved by moving the club from south-west London to south-west Milton Keynes. Such a move would not be in the long-term interests of football either. Nor do I believe that it would be in the public interest, and it certainly should not be eligible for Football Foundation support. By contrast, there is a strong case for seeking funding from the foundation to pursue the aim of returning the club to a stadium in or near Merton. The foundation is currently carrying out an audit of football stadiums, pitches and facilities across the country with the aim of compiling a register. No site is too big or too small to be included in the register, which will even include Old Trafford. I want to make sure that the old site of Wimbledon football club, where we could build a stadium in the future, is included on that register.
As I have said, I hope that the register will include Plough lane, and that the strength of feeling among the fans and in the local community for a return to Plough lane will be taken into account. When I pass the site at Plough lane, I am reminded of a photograph of a jet plane that was once shown to me by a psychologist from
70WH
the Royal Air Force. He said that the only thing wrong with the plane was that it did not have a pilot. Because of some psychological flaw, the pilot had lost his will and pulled the lever of the ejector seat, with the result that the plane had crashed. So I ask Mr. Koppel and the owners of Wimbledon FC not to pull the lever and not to take Wimbledon FC away from Wimbledon. I ask them to reconsider the situation because there are plenty of avenues worth exploring and plenty of organisations and individuals, including myself, who will support them if they try to bring the club back home.
This is a timely debate, as it occurs on the day after the arbitration panel announced its decision. I hope that it will be possible to use the debate as a springboard to launch new initiatives to save the club. I look forward to meeting the Minister later this week, or early next week, to discuss possible options. I shall also arrange a meeting next week for all interested parties with Lord Pendry, the chairman of the Football Foundation. We in Wimbledon have waited far too long for our local club, which has covered itself in so much pain and glory and which remains so much a part of our community, proudly to come back home. It has been left out in the cold for far too long. It is time for the club to come back to Wimbledon, where it belongs.
9.52 am
Alan Keen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on his speech, which typifies his efforts to help his local community. As I wrote my speech between 9.27 am and 9.30 am, I shall not take up too much time. As we are talking about football funding generally, I want to compliment the Football Foundation, which, under the chairmanship of Lord Pendry, allocates its funds with understanding of, and care for, the game that it supports.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and the Wimbledon independent supporters association, whose members I have met on several occasions. I am impressed by the professionalism of that association. My hon. Friend mentioned the programme that it produces, which is one of the best that I have ever seen. It outsells the official programme 2:1. It is not a fanzine but a programme, in which fans of visiting clubs provide details about their teams. The association understands the football business very well. I look forward to it being able to help to run Wimbledon at Plough lane.
One of the first political thoughts that I ever had as a teenager came to me when I visited my beloved Ayresome park, where Middlesbrough used to play. I saw the hoardings that read "Middlesbrough Football and Athletic Company Limited" and I could not get home fast enough to ask my mother what that meant. I thought that it must be wrong, but she explained that I did not own the club. I knew that I had equal ownership of the recreation ground where I spent most of my time playing football and cricket, but I was absolutely shocked to find that the club was owned by shareholders. I thought that those people with whom I went to cheer on my club every Saturday and me owned the club equally. That was probably my first political thought.
It is strange that I should have become a Member of Parliament, only to find out what a mistake it was for clubs to be owned by shareholders and not on a one

71WH
member, one vote basis. As a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament, I understand that. It was probably that visit to Ayresome park that day that made me seek sponsorship by the Co-operative Movement.
I have a special memory of Wimbledon; I must be getting on if I can go back many years, although this memory dates from only 25 years ago. I worked for Middlesbrough then, spying on the opposition as a part-time job. I sat on a bench at Plough lane on 8 January 1977, next to Jack Charlton, when we played Wimbledon, then a non-league side, in the third round of the FA Cup. As we did this year, we scraped a draw in the first game and managed to scrape a win in the replay. That happened at Plough lane, where the Wimbledon fans would like the club to return now.
If the owners of Wimbledon want to have a professional football side in Milton Keynes—I would support them in that—they should fund the creation of a non-league side. I understand that they are billionaires in Norway. They should put money into Milton Keynes and help the people of that town to have their own side. They would find that the supporters of the new club would have much more of a tie to it and would support it to the death, as most of us do our own sides. If it were their own side that came from nothing—as Wimbledon did when it won the FA cup—they would get so much satisfaction.
My hon. Friend mentioned Kris Stewart, the chairman of the Wimbledon independent supporters association. Kris and his colleagues are doing a great job and my hon. Friend is giving them every support. I wish them luck in the future.
I have been to Milton Keynes, once. Many people have never been. About 20 years ago, there was a wonderful series of radio programmes on a weekday afternoon—probably after "Woman's Hour"—called "A Geordie in MK". I am not a Geordie, but viewing Middlesbrough from Milton Keynes, people might think that I am. Other hon. Members present probably think that I am a Geordie. I was impressed by that programme and I have had a special affection for Milton Keynes ever since. I would like to offer my support to the town's efforts to get a football league team. However, in doing so, it should not take an existing club away from the people who care most about it; Wimbledon's local supporters.
Progress is being made everywhere. I am sure that hon. Members will hear about York City football club, which is emerging from its recent trauma. There was a Brentford independent supporters meeting in my local pub recently, 20 yd from where I live. Ron Noades, the owner of Brentford club, was also there. The club is only 50 yd from my house. I believe that the chairman of the independent supporters association has been offered a place on the board, effective immediately. Ron Noades is ready to hand the club over to be run in a democratic way by local people. All those involved have my full support. However, we are here to talk about Wimbledon. I wish the fans well and I thank my hon. Friend for all the support that he has given them.
9.58 am
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on securing yet another
72WH
debate on his football club. I did suspect, despite the title that I read in the Order Paper, that the debate would really be about the proposed move of Wimbledon FC to Milton Keynes.
If Wimbledon could have found a base within its own borough during the past 10 years, nobody would have been happier than those of us in Milton Keynes. We are not trying to poach Wimbledon. Milton Keynes is offering a solution to the problem that has faced Wimbledon for the past 10 years and which is highly unlikely to be solved in the next 10—the fact that the club does not operate from its home borough. Not surprisingly, on behalf of my constituents—and with the support, on the whole, of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White)—I take a different view of Wimbledon FC's move to Milton Keynes from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. The issue is, as he said, back with the Football League following the ruling by the arbitration panel that the league was wrong to dismiss Wimbledon's proposal to move in the first place and that it should reconsider the proposal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon has made much play of his early-day motion 570. It contains many misleading statements, with little evidence to support them. The move would not establish a precedent. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East has already referred to Arsenal, and a more recent precedent is the move of Meadowbank Thistle to Livingston, since Livingston is, like Milton Keynes, a new town. Neither instance established a wholesale move to franchising, and it is wrong to suggest in the early-day motion that a move to Milton Keynes would do so.
The early-day motion contains much about the historic links between football clubs and their communities, and the jeopardising of opportunities for young people. I remind hon. Members of the needs of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend. We, too, need football in our community and the current structures of the Football League—which dictate the structures of funding by the Football Foundation and by Football in the Community—effectively exclude our constituents from the public money and help that goes into building links between Football in the Community and football clubs.
I hope that all hon. Members who are present will agree about the positive role that professional football can play in communities. It clearly encourages young people, both girls and boys, to participate in football. It provides role models for them. It can provide a focus for community identity and, at its best—not always, unfortunately —it can provide a route for ethnic minority communities to participate in and feel part of a corporate community identity. My constituents in Milton Keynes want to share in those positive roles of professional football.
The role of the Football Foundation is important in providing funding for modern football facilities at all levels and strengthening links between football and the community. However, the problem with Football Foundation funding, as with the rest of the Football League structure, is that it is based on history; on the status quo. The rules are designed for established towns and cities and take no account of movements of population. In particular, they effectively exclude from

73WH
help places such as Milton Keynes. As hon. Members will know, Milton Keynes is a completely new community; it is not an extension of an existing town or city, and was created virtually from scratch in the past 30 years. That huge population movement is ignored by the structures of professional football and the accompanying funding structures.
Roger Casale: My hon. Friend has explained why any community would want a football club, but she seems to be taking a "Blue Peter" approach to football. She wants to offer a community a football club that was made somewhere else. Would not it be better to grow the club from the community, as Wimbledon has shown can happen, and, of course, to look for support for that from the Football Foundation? I believe that hon. Members present today, and probably hon. Members throughout the House, would support that.
Dr. Starkey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trying to educate me in the ways of football, but he talks about what happened 25 years ago and ignores the fact that the rules and structures of the Football League have altered. When the Football League was formed, for example, teams were brought straight into it in a way that is not possible now. The rules that pertain now are much stricter; the pyramidal structure of promotion from non-football league into football league is much more difficult, and it would be impossible for Wimbledon to do now what it did 25 years ago. It is ridiculous for my hon. Friend to skate over that and suggest that everything is now as it was, because everything is now much more difficult, and militates against new communities and in favour of established communities. That is the whole point.
My hon. Friend's community is on the upside of the structure and is favoured by it, while our community is heavily disfavoured by the structure. It is insulting for him to suggest that the route that was available for his club 25 years ago is available for us now. Indeed, the rules of the Football League are in the process of being reviewed and changed, which will make it even more difficult for non-league clubs to get into the league than it has been heretofore. The route for currently excluded clubs is becoming even more difficult.
I want to talk about the community that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East and I serve. Milton Keynes will soon have the largest urban population in the south-east of England outside London, and the largest urban population in Europe without a professional football team. Some 70 per cent. of the population of Milton Keynes have migrated there from elsewhere, and 70 per cent. of that 70 per cent. are from London, including Wimbledon.
When hon. Members talk about the link between football clubs and their communities, they seem to think that communities are set in aspic and that nobody moves anywhere. When they talk about communities, are they talking about places or people? They are not the same thing. Many people in Milton Keynes have contributed to football clubs in London in the past. Is that community contribution to be ignored, and can we take into account the community contribution of only those who currently live within the area of existing football teams? I do not understand why, if populations move, football clubs cannot also move.
74WH
Participation in football in Milton Keynes is strong, despite the severe disadvantages from which we suffer. We are a young city, with 40,000 school-age children, and a new school is built every year. Some 46 per cent. of our 250,000 population are under 30 years old. We have 375 youth football teams, with more than 16,500 people participating, either as players, officials or spectators. We have an active Bangladeshi football association, which organises an annual national Asian seven-a-side tournament that it occasionally wins. However, the route for talented youngsters to progress is extremely difficult; the nearest Premiership club is 50 miles away, and the nearest league football team is 20 miles away. Talented youngsters from Milton Keynes travel to eight different league clubs for professional coaching, and only those whose parents can transport them and support them can participate. A large number of young people in Milton Keynes are excluded by distance from progressing in their football careers.
Football Foundation funding can do little to help people in Milton Keynes. They are also unable to access Football in the Community funding or FA-approved academy funding, because of the lack of a football league team. Since the inception of the Milton Keynes development corporation, it has made provision for a professional football stadium in the development plan, because it foresaw that professional football was one of the facilities that a city would want.
In 1978, the then Football League general secretary made it clear that the Football League recognised Milton Keynes as a special case and had no objection to any club moving there, provided that a suitable stadium was available. It is wrong to represent that idea as a precedent for widespread franchising. I referred to the move, in 1995, of Meadowbank Thistle to Livingston, which is a new town. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East referred to the move made by Arsenal, when it faced economic extinction, from Woolwich to north London in 1913.
The reality is that Wimbledon has not been operating from its borough for the past 10 years. It has made it clear that it needs its own stadium or it will go out of existence financially. It is losing £20,000 a day. Milton Keynes has provided a solution and the club has made it clear that it will continue to provide training in the community within Wimbledon, even after a move. It will also provide such facilities in Milton Keynes. There would be an improvement, not a diminution, in the way in which the club participates in community football development.
The Football Foundation has a valuable role to play in encouraging wider participation in football and facilitating the links between youth football teams and professional football. However, it cannot do that effectively if it and the Football Association refuse to acknowledge the needs of communities such as Milton Keynes and remain frozen in past population patterns.
Mr. Roger Gale: Order. I have no power to impose a time limit on speeches, but four hon. Members wish to speak, in addition to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the official Opposition spokesman and the Minister. My intention is that the Opposition spokesman's winding-up speech should start at 10.40 am. That leaves each hon. Member who wants to speak about five minutes each.
10.11 am
Ms Joan Walley: I welcome the opportunity, here in Westminster Hall, to debate football. I only wish that we were not playing to the referee's whistle and that we had a first half and second half to discuss it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on securing the debate. The Order Paper refers to Football Foundation funding for football clubs, and the matters that have been raised in the debate show what many of us knew already.
We have great difficulties in raising issues concerning football outside the Premiership. Given the way in which finance and broadcasting are determining how the game is progressing, many clubs—not only Wimbledon—are facing financial extinction. I am pleased to see the Minister for Sport in the Chamber, and I pay tribute to him for his work, particularly for the fact that he visited Stoke-on-Trent not all that long ago. While I have the opportunity, I should remind him that we are serious about making a bid for a sport action zone, which, if successful, will aid us with grass-roots football.
Many Football League clubs face either financial extinction or crisis. York and Swansea, for example, have had problems. Football clubs throughout the league face difficulties. Port Vale FC in my constituency is seeking a new buyer, and the club has been on the market for a considerable time. Members of Parliament must work alongside the football authorities to ensure that there is a future for all our football clubs. We should extend league club status to those new towns and areas that do not have it at present. Such issues should be examined. My right hon. Friend the Minister should apply criteria that are equivalent to listed building status to football clubs, so that we do not lose them. They are so much a part and parcel of the local community. Perhaps he could extend the work of Supporters Direct and the ideas of mutuality to which my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) referred and ensure the viability of clubs at all levels.
Brian White: My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the reasons why Northampton Town was able to survive was that the local council took ownership of the ground and was active in ensuring that the interests of supporters and the town were paramount in the club's decisions.
Ms Walley: I absolutely agree. Supporters have a great contribution to make, along with local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, who introduced the debate, mentioned the new powers that local authorities have to help football clubs.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has a background in urban regeneration. If we can get football right, we can achieve much in urban regeneration. I urge him to move in that direction.
I do not want to participate in a debate about Wimbledon FC, although there is a connection between my constituency and Wimbledon. The scorer of what is possibly Jamaica's most famous goal, who played for Wimbledon, is now a well-known broadcaster. He was originally a constituent of mine who played for Port Vale and, most importantly for this debate, he came up
76WH
through an organisation called Lads and Dads, which was founded by the late Dougie Brown, who sadly died last week. I mention Lads and Dads because a debate about the Football Foundation is about grass-roots football. A debate about how football stadiums are funded should be about the football stadiums improvement scheme that is part of the Football Foundation, but it is also a separate entity; I understand that the Football Foundation cannot give grants to private companies. We should examine how we fund grass-roots football outside the Football League.
In my five minutes of extra time, I shall give the Chamber more information about the need for investment from the Football Foundation. I, too, pay tribute to the outstanding work that that organisation, and, previously, the Football Trust, has done under the chairmanship of Lord Pendry and the leadership of its chief executive, Peter Lee.
By 15 March last year, 2,838 league games in grass-roots football had been played in my constituency. The leagues involved are the Potteries and District league, the County Minor league, the City Traders league, the Springbank Vending league, the Staffordshire County league, the Lycett, Burslem and Newcastle District league, the Cheadle league, the Marston's Sunday league and the Lads and Dads under-16s league. As of 15 March, 5,480 matches had still not been played because of a lack of pitches and bad drainage on the pitches that have been created. Many of these are not sustainable, having been created out of former coalmining tips. That figure does not even include cup matches. How can people play, between 15 March and the end of the season, an outstanding 5,480 matches?
That is why I have set up a partnership in my constituency that has resulted in applications to the Football Foundation in respect of the Bradeley pitches. I am pleased to say that that is well under way. We are involved in further applications relating to pitches, such as that at Packmore and in other parts of my constituency, that cannot be played on. There are many examples of social exclusion where people cannot play on pitches because the pitches are not fit for the purpose. That is why the work of the Football Foundation is so important.
In Stoke-on-Trent, we have a partnership with the Groundwork Trust that involves the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. I want a rolling programme of money that is funded with the Football Foundation's support. I pay tribute to the two chairmen of the groups that provide that money, because money is needed for proper drainage and football facilities. That is the nuts and bolts of the work of the Football Foundation, although it receives little publicity.
In the final minute of play, I ask the Minister to address our worries about league clubs and clubs that belong to their communities. He could also examine the £60 million funding for the Football Foundation, of which £20 million comes from broadcasting, £20 million from the FA and the remaining £20 million from the Government.
I do not want to repeat the situation of a previous Parliament, when I wrote to every football chairman in the country to urge them to put pressure on the then Government to give money through the pools duty to ensure that the gap in Football Trust funding could be

77WH
met to allow clubs such as Port Vale to improve their stadiums. I do not want to see a £4 million shortfall from the Government in terms of their funding for the Football Foundation.
I hope that smaller clubs throughout the country that are outside the Premiership and do not have access to funding may find a way to survive. That should be linked to local grass-roots football and adequate support for the Football Foundation.
10.21 am
Hugh Bayley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on raising this important issue. Wimbledon FC's nomadic existence, and the draining effect of that on its supporters, is a real warning for York City football club's supporters, because we face the possibility that we will lose our ground and, therefore, face similar problems.
York City FC has a long and honourable history. The club was founded in 1922, and elected to the Football League in 1929, where it has been ever since. Like all clubs, it has had its ups and downs, but it has enjoyed notable high points. In the 1995–96 season, we beat Manchester United in the Worthington cup and we beat Everton the following year.
Now, York City FC faces its greatest challenge; a fight for survival following the directors' decision to put the club and ground on the market. The people of York rallied to support the club. Plans are going well to establish a supporters' trust to work with the club, and that will be launched on Friday at York's Barbican centre. I shall be there to show my commitment.
On Saturday 2 February—the 10th anniversary of the tragic death on the pitch of the York City player, David Longhurst—there will be a Fans United day for the home game against Lincoln City. That club, incidentally, is managed by a supporters' trust, which shows what supporters can do.
I pay tribute to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for the role that has been played by Supporters Direct, which is funded by the Government through the Football Foundation. I pay particular tribute to the work of Dave Boyle from Supporters Direct over recent weeks in helping to create and build York's supporters' trust. I also pay tribute to the City of York council, which provided office premises for that work and has been in contact with the various consortia that have made bids for the club.
Of course, York City FC is a business, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen) said. However, it is not a business like any other. York has many important businesses such as GNER, Nestle Rowntree and Portakabin. All those companies are important to the city and its economy. However, they do not get thousands of people turning up to support them week after week. A football club is different; it is a business, but a business that has had its assets built up by supporters over decades. Those assets should not be taken away from a club.
There is a long-established tradition in football that directors are the guardians of their clubs. They play a privileged role, and any profits ought to be ploughed back into the clubs. I hope that that will happen in the York City case.
78WH
The Football Association always had a rule that, when a club is wound up, its profits are given to a sports charity. The point of that rule was to deter asset stripping. However, in 1999, York City FC hived off its assets—its ground—to a holding company, which is now up for sale. When the holding company was established, the directors stated that its creation was to safeguard the future of the club. If the ground is sold, the assets must be used for that purpose.
That important issue raises a matter of football policy that I wish the Minister to consider. I hope that he will get in touch with Adam Crozier, the chief executive of the Football Association, to ask him to examine its rules, because they should be strengthened. When supporters have built up assets over decades, those assets should remain with the club; they should not be hived off and sold in a property deal. I hope that that will not happen in York, but the Football Association should have rules to prevent that from happening to any football club.
10.26 am
Mr. Tom Watson: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) for securing this debate on the Football Foundation. Following a century of under-investment and neglect, grass-roots football is being kicked into the 21st century by the foundation's regeneration work. Where once there were jumpers in the park, now there are goalposts, good-quality training and decent kits, thanks to the foundation's work.
West Bromwich Albion plays an important role in the community that I represent, and I thank the club for that. It has been enjoying not only a good cup run, but a good run of victories in the league. It also deserves credit for its work with schools and kids across my constituency, and beyond.
This month, its long-standing Football in the Community programme received a welcome cash boost of £221,000 from the foundation. The grant will allow the community programme to fund the Sandwell six towns project. That involves thousands of children in 60 schools across the borough; it helps them to develop teamwork, leadership and communication skills.
That grant will make a real difference in West Bromwich, as such money has made a difference to many of the grass-roots and community projects that hon. Members have mentioned. By encouraging kids to take an active part in football, we give them positive opportunities, and take them away from the temptations of crime and drugs. It is essential that we continue to recognise the foundation's role with regard to that.
Another project in my constituency, the Greets Green ABC club, has recently set up a football team called the Scorpions. It is a mixed club, which works with local kids. Next month, it will play its first away game, in London, against a team from Camden. I hope to welcome the players at the House for their victory celebrations. Dot Jones organises the club, which provides a classic example of grass-roots football at its best. It began when she started taking the kids out on to the local green to kick a ball around, and a good-quality project has developed from that.

79WH
The Football Foundation is all about such projects. Investment must be secured over the long term if we are to discover the David Beckhams of the future, the players for whom every club searches. The foundation is putting something back into the game.
The foundation is also widening access to the game. The National Association of Disabled Supporters has long needed a stronger voice in football. It has received a grant of £23,000 from the foundation, and it is now auditing all of the facilities in the country, so that, with regard to facilities for the disabled, the good clubs will provide a shining example to the poorer clubs.
Most of the current innovative projects in football are linked to the foundation. Its work with the homeless provides a good example of that. It runs the street football league, in partnership with the Rough Sleepers Unit. Football for the homeless has not only been fun, but has helped hundreds of kids off the streets and has given them self-esteem and confidence. There are also training and referee courses to get them on to that first step on the ladder and back into the real world. In my view, sport goes hand in hand with education as a tool for social inclusion.
Top-flight football is all too often criticised for being more concerned with the balance sheet than the score sheet, as today's debate has so amply highlighted. However, we should give credit to the Premiership. It is often knocked because of the way that football is going, but let us not forget that it puts £20 million a year into the foundation. We should also pay tribute to the chairman and the chief executive of the Premiership, who play an active role on the board of the foundation. It is right that some of the big bucks in the game should be channelled into making sure that grass-roots football is revived and improved.
After little more than a year, the foundation is already accessing more than 350 applications from clubs and community schemes, to the tune of £52 million. It is planning for the future and compiling the first register of football facilities in England. That database will enable us to make the first accurate audit of the estimated 70,000 football pitches in England. I hope that the stakeholders, including the Government, will continue to recognise the invaluable work of the Football Foundation, and will keep on providing adequate funding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) mentioned that Wimbledon FC was elected to the league in 1977. That would not happen now; the team would have to win promotion. A team can now win automatic promotion from the Conference, as did my side, the mighty Kidderminster Harriers—once, in 1994, when its ground was not up to scratch, and once under the leadership of big Jan Molby two years ago. It is now in the third division, and could well go up into the second division. There is hope for Milton Keynes. I am sure that if the move does not go the right way, we could always move Milton Keynes.
Dr. Starkey: Would my hon. Friend explain why, if promotion to the league has not happened in the 30 years of Milton Keynes's existence, it is likely to happen in the next 30?
Mr. Watson:I cannot comment on the quality of Milton Keynes's football teams, but if my hon. Friend wants to come to Kidderminster or West Bromwich, we can give her a few coaching tips, which she can take back to her side.
10.32 am
Andy Burnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on securing the debate, which is important because, for many people in football, Wimbledon FC embodies the dream factor. For fans everywhere, it is the epitome of the club that can go right to the top and win silverware. As an Evertonian, I have fond memories of 1988 and Lawrie Sanchez's header. Many fellow fans will share my hon. Friend's fondness for Plough lane. I remember being in the open-air away end, and seeing John Fashanu rampaging through our defence.
I support what my hon. Friend is trying to do and I pay tribute to the work that he has done to support and protect his club. I also pay tribute to Lord Falconer, who has helped him. I have nothing against Milton Keynes, and I listened to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). I, too, would like football to flourish there. We need to help new communities, but I do not think that we should do so by giving them another community's history and heritage. This is a test case. We are discussing whether a temporary owner can uproot a club that was nurtured and nourished by one community and plant it in another.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) made an interesting speech, full of knowledge and conviction. He talked about FA rules being changed. The point is not so much that rules are being changed; rule 34 is in the FA's rulebook, and we want the FA to enforce its rules to prevent clubs from selling their grounds and moving away from their communities. That is what rule 34 is about.
On the York case, it is wrong that the chairman of York City, who sold the club's assets and put them into a holding company, was one of the very people sitting on the tribunal yesterday that ruled that the Football League decision regarding Wimbledon FC should be reconsidered by the Football League. That is wrong, and it needs to be looked at. I support the foundation's action in helping Wimbledon FC rebuild its home in south London. I also support it buying back Portuguese right-backs from Liverpool, but I suspect that that will not be on the cards.
My main point is about the foundation, which is not about the wealth at the top of the game. It is about the grass roots, about which my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) spoke eloquently and passionately. I am probably one of the few Members of Parliament who still plays Sunday morning football. It can be an extremely depressing trotting out at Haydock rec on a Sunday morning in the drizzle and having to avoid the dog excrement that is invariably left all over the pitch.
It is no surprise that we are struggling for players. Throughout the Warrington Sunday league, many teams are struggling for players and for referees, which is a problem that afflicts the whole of football. There is

81WH
a shortage of referees from the bottom of the game to the top. I posit a very simple reason for that. The facilities provided for amateur footballers in this country are absolutely pitiful and depressing. In Britain, in the year 2002, Sunday morning footballers still have to change in shipping containers. Often, there is no hot or cold water, or toilets. Such a lack of facilities is standard. It is what we expect when we play football on Sunday mornings, and it is unacceptable.
The problem has much to do with local authority funding. I do not want to inject a partisan note into the debate, but local authorities were starved of funding in the 1980s and 1990s and, as a result, our civic fabric, our parks, and our sports facilities have declined.
Throughout my work with the football taskforce and, subsequently, with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I was closely involved with the setting up of the Football Foundation. Its philosophy was to take some of the new-found wealth at the top of the game and plough it back into the public game at the bottom. Professional football has always redistributed money within the game, from the top to the bottom of the league. The foundation did something important. It went a stage further and took funding from professional football down into the public sphere at the grass roots and to schools and parks.
The Office of Fair Trading challenged the foundation, but the foundation argued that because football acts together and sells its rights collectively, it can make a collective decision to invest its money for the wider public good. That is a crucial element of collective television bargaining that has been under threat both in this country and abroad.
The European Commission is yet again looking at the collective deals of the English Premiership and the Football League. I know that the Minister for Sport understands the issues and is passionate about them, and I urge him to resist moves by the competition authorities to break up the collective bargaining arrangements in football and in sport generally. Such arrangements allow football authorities to put enormous sums into the Football Foundation. Without them, the bigger clubs would simply break away. Smaller clubs would be looking after themselves and the wider game would be left to fend for itself.
People have asked why football is getting all the attention, but the point about the Football Foundation—
Mr Roger Cole: Order. I must advise the hon. Gentleman and others that if they do not recognise the constraints imposed upon them by the Chair, the Chair is likely to be less lenient in future.
Andy Burnham: I was under the impression that I was the last speaker, but I will be brief. The collective television deal is extremely important and it is helping football to be self-sufficient, possibly reducing the amount of lottery funding that it receives from the public purse.
There are two final points that I ask the Minister to consider. Will he look at the role of Supporters Direct and whether the foundation is able to give it more support and work more closely with it to help some of the struggling Football League clubs? I believe that
82WH
supporters' trusts are the answer to some of the problems in the game. Finally, will my right hon. Friend also consider diverting more lottery funding to the foundation? That would ensure that there was one funding pot for one strategy—created by the register of facilities—and would enable the foundation to create stability and health in football from the bottom of the pyramid right up to the top.
10.39 am
Bob Russell: Clearly, 90 minutes is not enough for such an important debate. I regret that the seven speakers from the Government Benches have not played as a team. I will do my best in the minute that is left to me.
I am no fan of Wimbledon FC because it once knocked Colchester United out of the FA Cup when Wimbledon was a non-league side. However, I stand foursquare with Wimbledon and, hopefully, the Football Foundation and others in supporting community-based clubs. If Milton Keynes wishes to have a Football League side, it need do no more than follow the excellent example in the past decade or so of clubs such as Kidderminster Harriers, Wycombe Wanderers, Rushden and Diamonds, Macclesfield Town and Cheltenham Town, or teams as diverse as Halifax Town, Lincoln City, Darlington and Colchester United—which I have supported for the past 46 years—all of which won their places in the Football League by merit.
It is easier than ever for a professional football club to rise to the highest level and it is nonsense to suggest that a club must move around the country, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) did. Milton Keynes is an important location and I strongly recommend that any football club can aspire to membership of the league from its own resources.
Clubs may legally belong to the shareholders or to an individual owner, but their hearts and souls belong to their fans, whether they are in the nearby community or have travelled with the club. Good luck to York City and Wimbledon FC, and to Milton Keynes in trying to win its place in the Football League the correct way.
Mr. Roger Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Colchester for his patience and generosity.
10.41 pm
Mr. John Greenway: In recognition of the generosity of the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), I remind hon. Members of the power of football. Last spring, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—the then Minister for Sport—publicly declared that, for the irregularities of which it was guilty, Chesterfield FC should have had more than nine points deducted. The result was that the Liberal Democrats won Chesterfield from Labour in the general election.
I remind the Committee of my interest. I have been president of York City football club since 1988, and probably watch approximately 20 York City matches every season. I have no executive responsibility and it is difficult to say precisely what is happening about the club's future. I spoke to one of the potential new owners,

83WH
Mr. John Batchelor, who was at the match last Saturday, and I have high hopes that he will become the future owner.
I am also lending active support to the embryonic supporters' trust, which I will help to launch at the York Barbican centre on Friday; I am glad that the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) will be there. By virtue of events elsewhere and with the help of Supporters Direct, many supporter trusts have been established, and I am convinced that they have played a vital role in helping clubs in financial difficulty to re-establish their base, although many are not yet out of the woods.
We play Lincoln City on Saturday, which is Fans United day, as the hon. Member for City of York mentioned. I was in the directors' box at York City on the day 10 years ago when David Longhurst collapsed and died of a severe heart condition that nobody knew he had. As president of the club, I chaired the appeal, which, with the help of the Football Foundation's predecessor, the Football Trust, put a roof over the Shipton street end of the ground. We called it the David Longhurst stand.
I remember the night we formally opened the stand. Sadly, the public address system packed up and I had to use a loudhailer, but I said then—enough people heard it—that I regarded it as one of the proudest achievements of my life to have been able to raise the money against the odds. We face much the same situation now.
York does not get the attendances that our performances on the pitch deserve, even though we are 23rd in the third division. We are one place from relegation, although we won last night. There is a contradiction. People say that we must save the club, and we had terrific attendances at our two recent cup games, although the cup run is now at an end for us. At the same time, however, people do not come through the turnstiles regularly enough to provide support for the club. That has to change.
In some respects, my next point about change will go to the heart of what the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) was trying to say. The facilities at many grounds are not up to the job of attracting fans, and are incapable of being used seven days a week, 365 days a year. York race course has 15 race days a year, yet it is busy every night with banquets, and every day with conferences and weddings. We have to make other use of the facilities.
The Conservative party strongly supports the creation of the Football Foundation, which has a big role to play in ensuring that football is adequately funded. It has several tasks to fulfil, but it has huge experience and expertise because, effectively, it was the Football Trust. During the past 10 years, the Football Trust was probably one of the most successful initiatives in British sport. Without it, our Premiership and first division grounds, and even some grounds lower down the league, would not have such fabulous new stadiums to which people are thronging.
That is only part of the role of the Football Foundation. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on his ingenuity in being
84WH
able to discuss the future of Wimbledon FC in a debate on the subject of football club funding and the Football Foundation. He was right to say that there would be a limit of £2 million on any grant from the foundation, but that is because its budget is not the £60 million target that was announced. Only 12.5 per cent. of the money—£7.5 million—is available for the football stadia improvement fund. People say that that cannot be enough, given the state of some grounds in the second and third division, but those clubs cannot afford even to think about redevelopment because they effectively face bankruptcy.
The most important element of the funding of the foundation comes from the Premiership. We do not know whether the television money amounts to 5 per cent., although we can argue about that another day, but that money is welcome. Cricket and lawn tennis give 11 per cent. of television money to grass-roots sport, and I hope that the Premiership will in time provide a greater resource.
What politicians can do about the future of football is limited at present. The Government do not own football and can only help to set a framework. I have watched football for 50 years, and many colleagues present have a similar love of the sport. Although I am president of York, I am a fanatical Arsenal fan, and I see what is happening at both extremes. The balance is not right. It is an old saying that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but that is precisely what is happening. It is happening to York City and to many other clubs, such as Port Vale, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) mentioned. I go to boardrooms on a Saturday at away matches, and precisely know the financial restrictions faced.
What is happening to those clubs is a prelude to a serious collapse of the second and third divisions in the foreseeable future. We cannot, in the time available, find a solution today, but I hope that what has been said will have tweaked the minds of those in football who have responsibility for the future.
One of the most heartening things to see during Saturday's game against Fulham was the banner held by Fulham fans that said "Save York City Football Club". I believe that we can save the club, but we must remember that the work of the Football Foundation is to support the grass roots of the game. Another debate on the subject would be useful, because my notes contain a lot about how we should invigorate the grass roots. The foundation has made a good start, but it needs to do more.
Unless we encourage youngsters and give them proper coaching, we can kiss goodbye to our dreams of winning World cups or European championships in years to come. We have seen what coaching on the continent has achieved. The Football Foundation is a vehicle for funding and has the experience to coach our youngsters and give them proper facilities, but it has to be given the resources.
This has not been a partisan debate, except when we have been talking about where Wimbledon FC should go. I, as the shadow Minister, and my party will do all that we can to help. What we are seeing now is the development of many things that were started by the Conservative Government. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wimbledon on securing the debate.

85WH
If nothing else, it has provided us with an opportunity to say a little about what is going on in football, and I hope that those in high places will hear what has been said.
10.51am
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on securing the debate. It was an innovatory way of getting Wimbledon FC on to the agenda. I went to see last night's derby match where Sheffield United, my team, and Sheffield Wednesday had a no-score draw. After getting up at 5 o'clock this morning to return here, I have to say that listed buildings and club relocation take on a new meaning.
The Football Foundation's achievements since July 2000 have been substantial. I shall deal specifically with the question of relocation of Wimbledon to Milton Keynes. Powerful arguments have been made by both sides but, as I have said on a number of occasions— especially in connection with the early-day motion— the Government do not have a major role to play. I have said to the fans, to the club and to my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) that it is a matter for the Football League. Indeed, yesterday's development clearly puts the matter back in the league's hands. I was able to speak about that to David Burns at last night's match, and the league will take seriously the referral from the Football Association.
The question facing the Football League is whether a club should be permitted to relocate away from a historic location. That is something for the FA to decide, but it is important that it is taken in the context of today's debate. The guidance that is given to the Football League says that it should consider the community interest when deciding the location of a club.
In four or five weeks' time, many of the questions raised today can be taken up with the new independent football commission. Unfortunately, it has taken a little while to get under way. Professor Fraser will be heading that commission, and I hope that some of the questions about ownership and the role of football— and the questions asked directly by supporters— will be taken in a wider context by the commission; that is why it was set up. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen), the chairman of the all-party group on football, may facilitate that debate because that subject was not properly aired in this morning's 90-minute debate.
There is clearly a lot of concern about ownership, and my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) mentioned York City football club. The club is close to my town of Sheffield and to Chesterfield, where Supporters Direct played an active role in setting up a trust. The independent football commission could usefully take up the fundamental issues of the ownership of football clubs' assets and the role that clubs play in the community. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Burnham) will become the chairman of Supporters Direct in the near future, and I wish him well. I hope that Supporters Direct can meet the new independent football commission to work through some of the major problems— they are opportunities, too— that football faces.
86WH
I welcome the work of the Football Foundation. Only last week, I had the opportunity to participate in a major conference that was called by local authorities and those interested in football in the north-east, including representatives of the Sunday leagues. Many of the problems that have been raised today were raised there. A new corporate governance is emerging at grass-roots level, aided and abetted by professional football. Clubs are setting up academies and working with the foundation, which suggests that they realise that the fans and the indigenous development of the game are important for its long-term health. That is what the Government and the Opposition believe, and the foundation plays a significant role in that regard. It is putting resources into the grass roots to ensure that we build social inclusion and tackle many of the issues that we encounter in the more difficult areas and estates. Football is a great conduit for bringing people back into society, and I know that those in the game take that role seriously.
It has taken the Football Foundation 12 months to bed down, but it is now moving in the right direction, and hon. Members have given many statistics to illustrate the role that it plays. As an aside, I might mention that I went to the opening of the new ground of the Sheffield club, the first football club in the world. The foundation helped to secure that new location and to renovate the old ground, which is now an excellent park in which to play football. Beyond that, the foundation's activities will help football in general.
As regards Wimbledon, we shall watch this space with interest to see what comes out of the Football League's deliberations. The wider issue of ownership should be taken up with the independent commission, and I hope that Fans Direct can get the debate going and that we can then bring the matter back into this arena. From time to time, the independent football commission will report to the Government on the debate, so it is a serious matter. All the major actors— the FA and others— are on the stage, so I am hopeful that we shall have a thorough debate, without taking a partisan position. We can probably come up with a formula that will lead to football being seen and owned by the communities in which clubs operate so that the game can move from strength to strength.
I congratulate the foundation, with which I work closely, and I hope that we can ensure that progress is made.
Ms Walley: Will my right hon. Friend and the Treasury be looking closely at the gap in the Government's contributions to the Football Foundation?
Mr. Caborn: I am looking closely at the issue with the Treasury. One must look at sport in the round. There are 130-odd sports in the UK, and I am bound to say that football, although very important, gets more than its fair share of the contributions. That is not to say that there is not a dialogue going on with the foundation; there is, and I shall take it up in the next two weeks with the noble Lord Pendry. Let us keep a sense of proportion about all sports in this country.

Congestion Charging (London)
11 am
Richard Ottaway: There are two fundamental questions: first, is the congestion charge a good thing or a bad thing; secondly, if we reach the conclusion that it is a bad thing, what can the Government do about it? An ancillary point is what the Labour party said that it was going to do about it and whether it has misled the people of London.
What is the point of the congestion charge? The Mayor of London is telling the people of London that the centre of the city is congested, which is not in London's interests. Accordingly, he will use his powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and impose a road user charge in a small, defined area in the centre. He argues that that will remove the congestion and improve the environment. Let us put aside the alternatives for a second. In my judgment, it is a classic piece of anti-car socialist envy— Red Ken in his finest colours. His true purpose is to tax a certain group of Londoners and raise money to subsidise the underground because the Government are slowly but surely letting it slide into chaos. The congestion charge is a policy that I oppose and I am pleased that the Conservative party opposes it too. It is a policy supported by the Liberal Democrats.
Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I, like other London Members, was involved in the Greater London Authority Bill. Does he accept that, whether he or I support or oppose congestion charges, it is a proper matter for the regional authority to decide— in this case, the Mayor and the Greater London Authority— or is it his position that the Conservative party should not allow it, even if, at a less than national level, it is considered appropriate?
Richard Ottaway: Central Government should intervene and I shall argue that they have the powers to do so. Since the hon. Gentleman and I served on the GLA Bill, then the longest Bill in Parliament, with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), I have gone to the Opposition Back Benches. I do not speak for the Front Bench, so he will have to put the question—
Mr. Mark Field: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that congestion charging was proposed during the election campaign for the Mayor of London in May 2000, but only on the basis that there would be a manifest improvement in public transport before such a charge was introduced? Everyone in London would agree that such an improvement has not been manifest. On that basis, is it not important that we in Parliament, while recognising the importance of devolved London government, have some voice to ensure that an inequitable tax is not foisted upon members of our constituencies and beyond?
Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I shall dwell at some length on the positions of the
88WH
parties at the time of the mayoral election and the general election. At the time, the Labour party simply said that it was against.
Mike Gapes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when his party was in government, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), went on record as advocating a form of congestion charging? The issue is not clear-cut. Some people in all parties are against the issue in principle and some are against the specifics of the current proposals—
Richard Ottaway: I think that the hon. Gentleman has the wrong Minister. That idea was floated in a Green Paper. It did not surface in a White Paper. After consultation, it was rejected and certainly never appeared in a manifesto.
As I was saying before I was interrupted, the Conservative party opposes the policy although the Liberal Democrats support it. The Labour party introduced the power to charge, then said that it opposed it, then supported it and now is not sure. That is not so much the third way as all three ways at the same time. Congestion charging would cause chaos. It would hinder rather than help London's economic development. It would tax those who cannot afford it. It would have no beneficial impact on the environment, but might worsen it.
The Government legislated to provide general powers for the introduction of congestion charging inside and outside London. Their current line is that they are waiting to see how the proposed charging works in London before they introduce other schemes. The Government have given themselves powers to veto the introduction of congestion charges outside London, but claim that they do not have such a power in respect of charging in London— the Prime Minister pointed that out at Prime Minister's questions two weeks ago. I shall challenge that stance but, before I do so, it would be helpful to evaluate the merits of congestion charges.
The Mayor says that traffic in London is getting worse, spoiling the environment and must be curtailed. That statement completely ignores the fact that traffic growth in central London in the past 20 years has fallen by 2 per cent. The real growth is occurring in outer London boroughs, where traffic has increased by more than 50 per cent. in the past 20 years. Mercifully, there are no proposals to introduce congestion charging in those boroughs. However, there is an additional factor— the plethora of traffic-calming measures introduced by the Government since 1997 and, more recently, by the GLA. Protection of pedestrians and cyclists is essential but we should accept that such measures will have certain consequences. Traffic in my constituency has been visibly slowed. The zebra crossing has been replaced by the pedestrian light, which often stops traffic for longer than necessary.
We all want less congestion. Those who want clear roads are usually those who simply want to be able to drive down them without frustration. Traffic jams are a regulatory mechanism. Virtually everyone in a traffic jam is there because he or she wants to be. If a road is clear of traffic, more motorists use it, which causes a traffic jam, and so the process continues. The Mayor

89WH
says that he wants to break that circle and eliminate congestion through taxation. In my judgment, for such a tax to succeed, it must pass three tests. It must be fair, have a purpose and be efficient. The congestion charge is none of those.
On fairness, who will be hit hardest by the charge? Not the fat cat City boss driving his car to the City, who will not be deterred in the slightest because he will add the charge to his office expenses. It is the little man who will be hit hardest— the poorest in society. That will include the evening shift worker who comes into town in the afternoon so that he can drive home late in the evening, the mother on the school run who has no alternative but to pay the charge, the pensioner who wants to go to the shops, and charities. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals estimates that the additional cost will be £5,000 a year.
Even the Mayor's agencies are complaining. The Metropolitan police authority is concerned that the charge will have an impact on recruitment and retention of police officers. Small businesses, such as newsagents, will be affected. The London fire and emergency planning authority estimates that 70 per cent. of its staff drive to work. Those people will be hit hardest.
The puzzling feature of the proposals is that the present incumbent of the mayoralty has always argued for the poorest in society. The measure is a regressive tax and it will affect the poorest in society hardest. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that motorists in the poorest fifth of the population commit up to 24 per cent. of their total expenditure to running their cars. Low wage earners must be flexible about where they find work. People on low incomes already find it tough enough to find work in the capital and hon. Members of all parties constantly refer to the lack of low-cost housing. To take another £1,250 a year out of income, after taxation, is equivalent to another £25,000 on a mortgage. That will be the impact.
The proposals fail the first test, as the tax will be regressive, and will hit hardest those on the lowest incomes. It is not a fair tax, but a poll tax on wheels. Even more extraordinary is the existence of an alternative. Section 296 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 allows the Mayor to impose a workplace parking levy, which would hit the highest earners in our society, not the lowest. It would be easy to implement and would almost certainly raise a high level of revenue, yet I have heard no one in the Labour or Liberal Democrat parties recommend it. I strongly suspect that the Mayor has a touch of the Prime Minister's radicalism— one can be tough on something, as long as there will be no fighting back. The workplace parking levy would affect big business, which the Mayor is keen to suck up to. The working classes will give him much less trouble.
The second test is whether the charge has a purpose. The claimed purpose is to improve the quality of the environment and to meet the obligation, under section 30 of the 1999 Act, that the Mayor cannot introduce such a measure unless it promotes an improvement of the environment in Greater London. Is the traffic of central London causing pollution? If so, is the congestion charge needed to remove it? The Mayor's proposals pay little attention to technological progress in the production of the clean car. The average car now produces only 5 per cent. of the toxic emissions that it
90WH
produced 20 years ago. Technology is in the pipeline to lower that figure even more. Hydrogen-fuelled cars are becoming a reality and before long an environmentally clean car will be possible.
Ironically, research has shown that the most polluted street in London is Oxford street, the only one where cars are not permitted. The only vehicles going down it are buses and taxis and we all know the difficulties that they have with their emissions. The irony is that they, the most polluting vehicles in London, will be exempt from the congestion charge. So how effective will the charge be in reducing pollution?
Tom Brake: I agree that great technological advances are being made that affect the cleanness of cars, but however clean a car is, will it not create the same amount of congestion?
Richard Ottaway: Two cars are needed for a traffic jam, but I think I get the drift of the question, which raises an important point. Is a traffic jam pollution? The inference to be drawn from the intervention is that it is.
Tom Brake: Whether a traffic jam created by zero-emission cars produces pollution is debatable, but it is not debatable that traffic jams have a clear and heavy impact on businesses, which must bear the costs of the slowing down of the movement of their goods.
Richard Ottaway: The centre of London seems to be doing all right at the moment without the congestion charge, but with the introduction of the charge the businesses the hon. Gentleman mentioned will be affected. In fact, congestion outside the zone may worsen. Helpfully, Labour-controlled Croydon council issued a press release last week entitled, "Ensuring congestion charge avoiders don't harm Croydon", which says that the Government have given the council £41,000 to carry out a consultation exercise. Multiplied over the 32 London boroughs, that comes to £1.3 million.
Bureaucracy seems to be good business under Labour. The Government introduce a tax and then give moneys to authorities to work out how to avoid its impact. The press release says it all. A congestion-charging zone cannot exist in isolation, as there is bound to be a knock-on effect. For example, plenty of traffic transits London using the Embankment. It would be forced south or north of the charging zone area. The City of London has expressed concern about the environmental impact on Tower bridge, which is just outside the zone and will become a focal artery for traffic trying to avoid it. The bridge is regularly raised, which will hardly ease congestion, as the area will be packed with vehicles avoiding the charge. Congestion outside the area will grow. To make matters worse, the Mayor is introducing no-car lanes on key routes such as the A40 to discourage traffic outside the zone.
The absolute chaos that will follow the introduction of the zone does not bear thinking about. The shambles will be total and gridlock complete. As the Mayor knows from his days in the Greater London council, one needs to shut only the odd key road to have a huge impact on London's traffic. He shut one lane of the A4

91WH
in Kensington and the tailback stretched back to Heathrow. To cut off a whole swathe of London to traffic will lead to absolute chaos.
Ms Karen Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, just before the 1999 Act allowed local government powers to introduce congestion charges, Westminster city council distributed to every household a copy of Westminster Reporter, which said that the time had come to introduce congestion charging and that the only barrier was the fact that the Government would not allow the council to do it?
Richard Ottaway: I have absolutely no idea, but perhaps the hon. Lady would like to take the matter up with Westminster council. I take it from that intervention that she is in favour of the congestion charge.
The only purpose of the proposals is to raise revenue; they will do nothing to improve the flow of traffic, so the tax fails the second test.
The third test is whether the tax is efficient. The Mayor has made no secret of the fact that he hopes to impose the charge to subsidise the London underground. That is an obsession with the Mayor— he did that when he ran the GLC and, now that the Government have given him powers to raise extra taxes, the temptation to do it again is irresistible. However, the sums raised for the funding of the underground will be risible and will barely scratch the surface of the extra funding that is needed.
In August 2000, Transport for London estimated that the scheme would raise £200 million a year to give to public transport projects— which is code for the London underground. However, it is now expected that the scheme will raise only £628 million in the first five years of its operation and that, as the budget is revised, projected costs will rise and revenues fall. Although an extra £100 million for the underground will always be welcome, it will not make that much difference. Yesterday's Evening Standard said that the Government had cut funding for the underground. People are concerned that, for every pound raised by the charge, the Government will cut their subsidy by £1.
Congestion taxes require significant mitigation measures and a network of cameras and monitoring equipment. Transport for London admits that the total cost of implementing the scheme in London will be up to £560 million in the first year. Roland Berger, the international transport strategy consultants, warned last November that the system had already been rejected as dated by almost every other world capital and that rushing into a system of levying one basic charge over a rigidly defined area would simply push congestion from the centre to other parts of the capital. Will it even reduce congestion inside the zone?
In Singapore, the technology is sophisticated and fine-tuned to control traffic flows. The half a dozen arteries into the city centre have different rates at different times of day. There is one rate for entering during the rush hour. Half an hour later, the sum is reduced. That system is effective and evens out the traffic
92WH
flows. Technology is actually making a difference. In Singapore, drivers pay every time they enter the zone. Here, the technology will be limited, or virtually nonexistent, and the use of season tickets may well encourage more traffic. Here, once drivers have paid their annual fee, they might as well get their money's worth by going in and out at will. Accordingly, I argue that the charge fails the third test. It is an inefficient tax. The sums raised are not worth the chaos that it will cause.
Those are the three tests. The question now is what the Government should do about it. Will the Government intervene to prevent the disaster that will happen? I do not know why I should try to help them out, as the chaos that will result from the proposal is likely to happen just before the next general election. I shall then point out, with some relish, which party introduced the measure. However, I put London first and I would like to give the Minister some advice on the way out of the minefield into which the Government are walking.
Until now, the Government have said that it is a matter for the Mayor. The Prime Minister made that point to me at Prime Minister's questions two weeks ago. They have been saying that they can only tinker with the proceeds of the scheme— that they do not have the power to block it. The tinkering comes under paragraph 16 of schedule 23 of the 1999 Act, and I am sure that the Minister will use his powers with diligence when it becomes necessary. Section 143 of the Act gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the Mayor to change his transport strategy if he considers it to be inconsistent with national policy and likely to have an adverse effect outside London. Personally, I think that gridlock in the capital will have a dramatic effect outside London, and the only astonishing thing is that the Government fail to recognise that fact.
The real power for the Minister, however, is contained in section 30 of the 1999 Act, which relates to the general powers of the authority. The Act says that the authority should have the power to do anything that it considers will further any of its principal purposes. It goes on to define those purposes as
"promoting economic development and wealth creation in Greater London;…promoting social development in Greater London; …and promoting the improvement of the environment in Greater London."
Although the Act gives the Mayor the power to introduce road user charging, he can do so only if it promotes economic development, wealth creation and social development and improves the environment. In my judgment, the proposals fail on all three counts. Having a zone in the centre of London where traffic is slightly reduced, but with chaos in the surrounding areas, will not promote the economic development of London. It will harm it and it will stifle the process of wealth creation, as investors run a mile. As it is a regressive tax, which will hit those on the lowest income hardest, it will hardly promote social development in London. It seems that it will barely affect the environment. At Mayor's question time last May, the Mayor said:
"We expect there to be no significant improvement in air quality directly as a result of congestion charging."
It is arguable that, in a city full of grid-locked traffic, the environment may deteriorate.

93WH
The proposal breaches the general powers of the authority. The good news for the Minister is that section 30(7) gives the Secretary of State powers to issue guidance to the authority concerning the exercise by the GLA of its powers. That power is unfettered and can be used widely. It is clear that the Government have the power and the grounds to intervene. The only question remaining is whether they have the guts. Frankly, I am not sure that they have. This horrendous issue will have a profound effect on the capital and they are sitting like a rabbit caught in the headlights of an oncoming bus.
During the London mayoral election in May 2000, everyone's positions were clear. The Liberal Democrats were in favour of congestion charging and have remained so. The independent Mayor was in favour of it. The Conservative party was implacably opposed, and we thought that the Labour party was too. It campaigned on a manifesto that said, "New Labour, New London", and "no congestion charges". The Prime Minister endorsed that manifesto— it had his picture on page one and his signature. On 13 April 2000, during the campaign, the Prime Minister made his move. An article in The Times of that day stated:
"Making his long-awaited intervention into the mayoral contest in support of Frank Dobson, Labour's candidate, Mr. Blair drew back from repeating his previous personal attacks against Mr. Livingstone. Instead, he targeted the Brent East MP's policies, insisting they were wrong for the capital, and highlighting transport in particular. Mr. Blair said that Mr. Livingstone's plans to charge drivers entering central London would be costly, and that his pledge to fund improvements to the Tube by issuing bonds would saddle Londoners with debt. However, the impact of the warning was blunted when Mr. Blair suggested that even if Mr. Livingstone were elected, his bond issue would never happen."
That is an interesting aside as the Government still wrestle with proposed public-private partnership and the possible bond issue.
That was the position of the Prime Minister and the Government. Not wishing to fall out with their leader, Assembly candidates fell over themselves to agree. Trevor Philips, leader of the Labour group on the Assembly, and Deputy Mayor, said that he would not support the congestion charge until improvements were made to the underground. It will be a long time before that is put to the test. The Mayor got his mandate. He had been clear, and the electorate responded accordingly. However, he did not have an unfettered right. The London Assembly has the power to overturn the Mayor's budget if there is a 70 per cent. majority against it. It was a good election for the Conservative party, and we came out the biggest party in the London Assembly. Labour were not far behind, and it came second. That meant that the 70 per cent. needed to prevent the congestion charge was present. Ever resourceful, the Conservative party took the words out of the Labour party manifesto, incorporated them into a motion and invited the Labour party to support it just three weeks after the election.
The high-flying rhetoric of opposition to the congestion charge proved to be nothing but deceit. Labour Assembly Members voted against the motion— hypocrisy of the highest level. They wanted the congestion charge after all. However, Ministers are more wary than naive Assembly Members. They know that troubled waters lie ahead and they distance themselves, saying that it is not their responsibility. Nevertheless, the powers to intervene exist.
94WH
Unless there are substantial improvements in London's public transport, a congestion charge will exacerbate current problems. The right way to make progress is to hold a public inquiry. In about three years, Edinburgh intends to implement a congestion charge, but after a public inquiry. The full impact of the charge should be assessed and the views of boroughs such as Wandsworth, Kensington and Chelsea should be incorporated.
Using central London as a pilot scheme will pose a significant risk to its social, economic and environmental well-being. Of all the places in the United Kingdom, the centre of London is the last place where a pilot scheme of this nature should be held. As the Brett report, commissioned by Westminster council, concludes:
"The scheme has a number of significant drawbacks which means that a public inquiry would be the most appropriate way of tackling the substantive concerns over the congestion charge."
I agree. The only question is whether the Minister, who is the only one with the power to do anything about it, will do something.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Roger Gale: Order. Four hon. Members have indicated in writing that they want to participate in the debate and a further three are standing. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the Opposition spokesman and the Minister must also speak. I therefore prevail on hon. Members to keep remarks brief to allow the maximum number to participate.
11.30 am
Kate Hoey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on securing the debate. I, too, tried to secure such a debate. He obviously has better luck than I have had.
I do not think that congestion charging will work. I accept that the Mayor decided that he had a mandate to go ahead with it and is determined to have it, but until we improve our public transport, people will not accept that it is fair.
I want to draw attention to the ridiculousness of the zone. I should like the whole proposal to be dropped and I urge the Minister seriously to consider holding a public inquiry if he has the powers to do so, because real and necessary consultation that allows people to understand what it will mean and how unfair it will be has not yet taken place.
Although there have been exemptions— we welcome those that the Mayor has added after consultation— anomalies will make the situation more expensive for some public services. I draw particular attention to my local hospital, Guy's and St. Thomas's. Staff have recently written to Transport for London pointing out that they were
"disappointed that more has not been done to ameliorate the effects of the charge on the national health service, its staff and patients. As proposed, large numbers of our staff who use their cars to come to and from work will remain liable for the charge because they will not be using their cars for the very specific, and limited, reasons set out in the scheme order. Examples include staff

95WH
on-call from home…who have to come…out of hours and return home within the charging hours; staff who bring their children into the hospital's nursery facilities."
There is a shortage of staff, they are often dependent on accessing nursery places, and they will be liable to the charge. Many of the staff working in my local hospital have great difficulty in getting to work by public transport. The trust will have to reimburse much of the costs of charges, which will be a considerable extra burden to the national health service. The alternative is not to do that and face the loss of staff and greater recruitment and retention problems.
Glenda Jackson(Hampstead and Highgate): Is my hon. Friend aware that one exemption that the Mayor proposes is for those who, as Transport for London says, make a
"contribution to wider social or environmental objectives for example, NHS staff providing a essential services"?
Kate Hoey: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. The problem is that the hospital has found that if that exemption is taken literally, it can say that everyone working in the hospital is exempt, which is clearly not going to be the case. That is why the hospital has drawn up the areas that will be affected by the proposals. Importantly, Transport for London has chosen to operate a reimbursement scheme for staff who will not be entitled to a discount, rather than an exemption scheme. The time and costs associated with the reimbursement scheme, not to mention delays and errors that could occur, could add extra cost for the hospital.
Mr. Eric Pickles: My understanding is that it is a case of while they are at work, not while getting to work. We could be looking at a £25 million bill a year for hospitals.
Kate Hoey: I have not gone into the detailed costs, I just know that the hospital would not put its serious concerns in writing if it did not feel that the proposal would have a bad effect on it and its services. There is also the question of exemption for dependent patients and their carers. A range of issues is involved. Until the scheme is working we shall be unable to work everything out, and we shall be faced with huge problems afterwards.
When the scheme was proposed and looked as though it would happen, I thought that it would affect central London. However, the boundary has been drawn through the centre of my constituency in Kennington— through the heart of a conservation area and a community that has suffered a huge amount over the years but has managed to keep together and maintain its community feel. Congestion charging would cover Kennington, while Harrods, which in my view is in the centre of London, would not be covered.
I recently attended a meeting of 400 people in Kennington. People are only beginning to realise what charging will mean, which is why we need a public inquiry. When people discover that the powers that be are treating Kennington as central London, but not Harrods, they will think it nonsense. Splitting my
96WH
community in half will mean that people living on one side of the road will have to pay while others will not. Businesses will also be affected, which will be a big blow to part of my constituency that I am not prepared to accept.
If there is a need for congestion charging, which I dispute, it should have begun with a small pilot scheme in the core of central London. If we were all to draw maps of central London, the scheme should be piloted in the middle of them.
As the hon. Member for Croydon, South said, lights have replaced pedestrian crossings in the past year or two. Cars therefore stop for longer when nobody is crossing the road, which causes pollution that affects people waiting at bus stops for buses that do not come because we have not improved public transport. There is a vendetta against the car. Having a car was something that gave me independence. Many women will not get out of their cars no matter how much public transport improves. Some may use their cars less if public transport improves, but until we see an improvement we shall not force people out of their cars. All that will happen is that people will be prepared to sit for longer.
As the hon. Member for Croydon, South said, charging will not affect people who are rich, who own businesses or who are Members of Parliament because they will pay and continue to use their cars. The people who will suffer will be those in my constituency who have got a job and saved up to buy a car, even if it is a second-hand banger, which they see as an important part of their lifestyle. They will suffer and it is wrong that we are allowing this to happen without a public inquiry.
The Government have the power to intervene and I urge them to do so with reference to my residential constituency— huge numbers of Members of Parliament live there, but I know that that will not influence the Minister, who also lives in the area. We must examine the scheme and stop it before we damage the Mayor's role.
11.39 am
Mr. Mark Field: It is a great pleasure to follow the common-sense words of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). I must apologise to the Minister because I must leave slightly early to attend a constituency engagement, but I shall read Hansard in great detail tomorrow. I shall be brief because I know that several other hon. Members want to speak.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said. Devolution of power to the regions has led to some momentous decisions, which on face value mean that other matters are outside the remit of the House. Although many Conservative Members were not in favour of a London Mayor, we must now work with that position as it is clearly here to stay, and we must ensure that we put the interests of Londoners first.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) made an interesting and thoughtful contribution that covered many of the most important points. I want to touch on a few issues that have not been discussed in great detail.

97WH
Like the hon. Member for Vauxhall, I believe that the exemptions issue is a can of worms and entirely arbitrary. Given that London is the economic powerhouse of the country, every last accountant, banker and solicitor going into central London is a key worker. Therefore, the concept of restricting key workers according to some arbitrary lobbying of Ken Livingstone is entirely wrong. It is clear that the key worker concept is open to abuse and uncertainty.
I am also concerned about the financial viability of the proposal. It is agreed that there must be radical improvements to London's infrastructure, and in particular its transport infrastructure, before a road charge can be considered. That applies to the underground system too. As Bob Kylie has made clear, it will take at least 10 years to make any fundamental improvements to the underground system. From the moment when the decision is made on how the investment will work, the tube will get worse for the next three or four years before it gets better. That decision will simply be the first part of the problem.
The Mayor has placed great reliance on London buses, and endless advertisements on the television, radio and billboards talk about the importance of buses. Although there are improvements, they will not make anything like the difference required to ensure that the problems with the congestion charge will not come home to roost.
The proposed scheme was intended to raise about £200 million a year. It now seems clear from all the statistical analysis that the maximum amount will be around £125 million a year. It is difficult to see how that will improve London's public transport. There will also be vast implementation costs. In the past week, there has been the revelation that Ken Livingstone has had to sign a number of preliminary contracts, which means that, even if he decides tomorrow to do away with the scheme, there will inevitably be a cost of about £20 million to London's taxpayers. As there are now 53 weeks until the scheme is due to be implemented, a massive amount of infrastructure work needs to be done. Even if the scheme got the green light, it would not be operational by the beginning of next February, so the congestion charge could become something of a shambles.
I know that I speak for myself; I am not sure that I speak for my party, but I shall allow my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) to make the party view clear. I speak as the Member of Parliament for the constituency most directly affected by the congestion charge, if it is brought into play. It is incumbent on us to put the interests of Londoners first. I shall support the Minister if he now takes the initiative and holds a full public inquiry.
The Government can rest assured that they will have the support of London Conservative Members if the interests of Londoners are put first. I am greatly concerned that the Mayor of London does not want to incur the wrath of environmentalists by cancelling the charge himself, although my hunch is that, given the political situation, he is as keen as anybody to ensure that he does not have a congestion charge nightmare on his hands during his re-election campaign in the run-up to May 2004.
11.44 am
Mike Gapes: I, too, applied for a debate on this subject and I am delighted to congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on his success in securing this timely debate. Like him, I speak as an outer-London Member but, unlike the two previous speakers, the scheme does not include my constituency. My assessment on behalf of my constituents in Ilford and Redbridge, which include many underground and railway stations, is that they will gain nothing from implementation of the scheme. The wrong scheme is being introduced at the wrong time in the wrong way.
There has recently been controversy about a residents' parking scheme in Seven Kings. My constituents will be charged £5 to enter central London, but under the Mayor's strategy they will be entitled to a 15 per cent. reduction on journeys in, which will have to be taken by other forms of transport. There is no way in which the 86 bus can go all the way from Romford to central London in anything like the time that it takes on the tube or suburban rail lines. My constituents will use the Central or District lines or the suburban lines from Liverpool street to Southend or from Fenchurch street to the east. Those lines are already jam-packed at rush hour, and it is unbelievably unpleasant to get on a Central line train at any time between 8 am and 9.30 am. It is the same in the afternoon.
My constituents will either pay the £5 charge to drive into central London every day, or they will have an even more unpleasant journey on public transport. When they get home from work, they will see outside their houses and all around cars owned by county commuters from Hertfordshire and Essex who have come in and found a tube or suburban line station near which to park to enable them to get to work. The whole of outer London will become a car park for county commuters. There will be no benefit to my constituents whatever.
I raised these concerns during the original consultation but, needless to say, my views were completely disregarded. I expected nothing else, because the Mayor is obsessed with getting the scheme through before his next election. His timetable is unrealistic; he wants the scheme to be introduced in February next year and he is using technology that is untested and unproven.
An interesting article in The Guardian on 14 July 2001 referred to the general problem of new technology for Governments and said:
"'The lesson that government departments have been forced to learn is that the big bang approach is a recipe for disaster' said Tony Collins, executive editor of Computer Weekly magazine. 'There have been so many projects which have sounded so simple on paper. But it is only by running a test in a certain area for at least six months that you can find out whether it will work.'"
Perhaps there will be a test and we shall be the guinea pigs. The first six months will be interesting.
With a mayoral election in spring 2004, I am tempted to let the Mayor get on with it and suffer the political consequences of introducing such a disastrous scheme. However, that will not be good for my constituents or anyone else in London, whether within the central zone or outside it. It is in the public interest that those of us who are worried about the matter speak out now. If the scheme goes ahead regardless, we will at least be able to

99WH
say that Labour politicians were not responsible because the Mayor is anti-Labour, was elected as an independent and introduced this policy in a pig-headed way without listening to the voices that said it would not work in the interests of our constituents. Many other people should be speaking out. For my constituents, and many others in outer London, there is no tangible benefit whatever from the scheme as it is proposed today.
11.49 am
Simon Hughes: I undertake to speak for a couple of minutes only. I have a direct constituency interest in the proposal because the boundary of the zone goes from Tower bridge on the northern edge of my constituency and cuts through the north-eastern part of Southwark until it joins the Lambeth border at the end of Newington Butts. Northeast Southwark is in the zone, the rest of the borough is out of it and the boundary goes through my constituency, in a similar way to that described by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) in relation to her constituency.
The Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have been consistent in the principle of their positions. We have supported in principle a congestion charge and the fact that London government should decide on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) will speak on behalf of our party on that general principle. I have made my views clear at both rounds of the submissions that have been called for by the Mayor and Transport for London and have put in submissions on both occasions, including earlier this month.
I want to raise some matters that I believe are important with the Minister. It is appropriate to bring to Ministers' attention matters that might influence their decisions about whether to intervene in the way in which the 1999 Act allows them. I have put the case for the boundary to be in a different place. It is nonsense for it to go through the middle of communities, boroughs and postal districts. IIIogically, that will break up natural patterns of movement and put people on either side of a boundary that they will have to cross regularly. I have asked for the boundary to be moved outwards, so that it naturally takes in the whole of communities in my borough and elsewhere.
I have put the case for a buffer zone, so that people who live just outside the zone but whose natural movements, for which they have to use private transport, come within it—taking the children to school, going to see an elderly relative, shopping, going to the doctor—can be covered without having to pay the £5 daily charge. I am surprised that that idea has not yet been accepted. I hope that Transport for London and the Mayor will accept it, but if they do not, it will be helpful to bring other pressure to bear in examining the issue. There is a strong view in my constituency that it would be right.
Like the hon. Member for Vauxhall and others, I think that although the exemption extensions made by the Mayor between rounds one and two are welcome, other categories have not been thought through. The
100WH
hon. Lady and I share the Guy's and St. Thomas's hospital trust: Guy's is in my patch, St. Thomas's in her's. I think that there are only two other hospitals in the zone: Bart's and the Middlesex hospital. There is a real issue here for the major hospitals, about which we are all concerned. I hope that other exemptions, including those that would affect the life of hospitals, will be examined.
As my constituents have become aware of the issues, they are increasingly persuaded that the Mayor should use his power to hold a public inquiry. My judgment is that the scheme is a good idea in principle, but that it must be shown to work, stack up and be fair. That will provide public confidence in it. I hope that the Mayor and Transport for London will agree with my view.
11.53 am
Glenda Jackson: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on obtaining the debate and, in an era when Conservative policy seems to change from day to day, on staying true to what was Conservative policy during the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill. He was opposed to the measure then and is now; I supported it then and do now.
I shall set part of the argument in context, thanks to a helpful briefing from Transport for London about whether the proposals will actually go ahead. As we know, the Mayor has held a consultation period during the past 18 months, which, I believe, closed in January 2002. Transport for London is reviewing all the representations and I understand that the Mayor will issue a report, then make a decision later this year, on
"whether to accept the scheme unamended, to press ahead with an amended scheme, to order a public inquiry or to drop the scheme".
I point out to my hon. Friends that the idea of congestion charging was certainly Labour party policy. A Labour Government introduced the GLA Bill and a Labour Government afforded a major breakthrough in how to raise adequate funding for transport in London, namely by hypothecation. That issue was touched on only briefly this morning. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) suggested that £130 million a year might be raised from congestion charging. The figures presented to me by Transport for London show that it is actually £130 million a week. It has been estimated that traffic congestion costs London £2.5 million a week.
The arguments advanced by hon. Members who oppose the introduction of congestion charging in London are exactly the same as those that would have been advanced when residents' parking was first proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) spoke about county travellers coming in and using his constituency as free parking. That happened in my constituency. The problem was solved when my local authority introduced a residents' parking scheme. I have never heard anyone ask for such a scheme to be abolished. On the contrary, I get letters from constituents saying, "Please, when may we have a residents' parking scheme?"
The bottom line is that traffic must be managed. We must control it; it cannot control us. It destroys people's lives. Several hon. Members, quite properly, put forward the concerns of their constituents. I put forward the concerns of my constituents, many of whose lives are

101WH
being destroyed by traffic from outside their borough. The owners of those cars do not inflate the local economy; they use the constituency simply as part of a process for getting from one side of London to the other. People are plagued not only by air pollution, but by noise pollution. Their children cannot play on the streets and they are worried about the rate of traffic accidents.
Those are the issues that must be tackled. It is absurd to argue that this is a sneak tax that is being imposed on the people of London. Where does the money for improvements in transport and the environment come from? It comes directly from income tax or it is raised from people who use the benefits of their cars and have to pay for the privilege. We accept that we have to pay for the privilege of parking. Our ability to park where we would ideally like is continually reducing. In inner and central London, methods of controlling traffic by making it more difficult or more expensive to park have reached their apotheosis. It is not possible to reduce traffic any further in that way. We have to use other ways of managing traffic and of ensuring that people who stay in their cars have to pay for the privilege.
The big plus about congestion charging is that all moneys raised can and must only be spent on improving transport in London.
Mike Gapes: Does my hon. Friend not think that it would be more sensible to improve public transport before introducing such a scheme so that the capacity is there to take the people who are giving up driving?
Glenda Jackson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We are seeing improvements in public transport in London. [HON. MEMBERS: "For goodness' sake!"] Hon. Members may scoff, but improvements are under way near this place. There are changes in road routes, a greater preponderance of bus lanes with more cameras so that people who still insist on driving their cars down them will be fined, and more and better buses that are more accessible, clean and green. It is absurd to think that public transport in London can be transformed without the added money that will come via congestion charging and the other plans to introduce money into the public transport system.
I found it astonishing that the hon. Member for Croydon, South was suddenly a passionate advocate of the needs of the poorest people in London— this from a member of the party that fought tooth and nail against the introduction of a minimum wage. He also referred to housing. His Government absolutely decimated the building of public housing in London.
Ms Buck: On the conversion of the Conservative party to the cause of the poorest, Westminster City council generates £88 million a year from its parking charges. The charge does not discriminate between rich and poor, neither are there exemptions for nurses, teachers or other public sector workers. It is extraordinary hypocrisy for Conservative Members to justify such income for that council but deny it as a means of raising money for investment in public transport.
Glenda Jackson: Hear, hear! I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's powerful argument. The poorest people in London do not have cars; they do not even have old bangers.
Ms Buck: It is the first thing that they buy.
Glenda Jackson: It may be the first thing that they buy, but it is extremely difficult for them to maintain it. Old bangers make a sizeable contribution to pollution in London and, in many cases, are dangerous. However, some people are too poor to afford even an old banger. They are entirely dependent on public transport, particularly buses. Buses are the first target in the Mayor's plans to improve public transport in London. It is beginning to work: the number of people who use buses during the day in London has increased by 6 per cent. and the figure is even higher for night buses.
There will always be difficulties when we attempt to change the entirely erroneous belief of virtually everyone in this country— not just in London— that someone who owns a car has an absolute right to drive it where and when they like and park it where they like. We must not only improve the environment of London but ensure that its economy is sustainable. Traffic in London costs far too much. It must be properly managed and it must make a decent return to improve public transport.
Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend has talked a lot about the environment. Does she agree that it is ridiculous that there has not been an environmental audit of congestion charging? How will it affect communities and what will happen on each side of the boundary?
Glenda Jackson: An environmental audit has been done in part, if not in totality. The mayoral advisory cabinet with responsibility for the environment in London will examine the matter in some detail. However, the basic principle stands. The Labour Government took a major step forward in breaking down the barrier against hypothecation that had precluded many advances for the common good. Congestion charging is hypothecation. The money raised must be spent only on improving public transport.
Improving transport in London improves transport for everyone. I supported the measure when I helped take the GLA Bill through the House and I support it now. The Mayor will consider the responses to the consultation and the boundaries may be amended. However, the basic principle is right and proper. The Mayor was elected and congestion charging was part of his manifesto. The most recent MORI polls show that 51 per cent. of the people of London support congestion charging, and I am one of them.
Mr. Roger Gale: Order. I call Mr. Randall, who will be the last hon. Member to speak before the Minister.
12.4 pm
Mr. John Randall: A marker has been put down. We will have to return to the subject, because many people wish to speak on it. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) expressed a view that is contrary to the majority view. There is no point in rehearsing the arguments against the measure. I would not drive into London if public transport were improved, but would much prefer to come in on the

103WH
Metropolitan line. However, I understand that it will not be modernised for at least 10 to 15 years. Until public transport is improved, many people will not find congestion charging a disincentive to coming in by car.
Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend share my concern and surprise that fire fighters are not designated as key workers? Many fire fighters who are stationed in the charging area live outside it and they cannot get an exemption for their home-to-work travel, as the Secretary of State refused it on request.
Mr. Randall: That shows, Mr. Winterton, why we need to discuss—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The hon. Gentleman holds an important position in the House and should know that I am now a Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Randall: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a delight to address you in the proper manner.
The impact on areas just outside the zone and in the suburbs will be huge. The scheme is impractical and will be expensive to implement and I urge the Government to use their power to give all Londoners a break. The scheme may be regarded as well intentioned— I give the Mayor that— but it is fatally flawed and we should not go ahead with it until we have thought it through properly and public transport is improved.
12.6 pm
Tom Brake: I wondered why we were to have this debate on the Government's policy on congestion charging in London, as that is a devolved matter. Of course, the Government need to consider the impact of congestion charging in areas where the Greater London Authority has boundaries, or if there are motorways, but hon. Members know that the Greater London Authority Act 1999 unequivocally gave the GLA those powers.
Glenda Jackson: Any scheme requires the Secretary of State's approval.
Tom Brake: I am aware of that, and I will ask the Minister only one question on that point. As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said, there is evidence of support for congestion charging, which hon. Members must remember. There will be concerns as the details of the scheme emerge, and the role of the Mayor and Transport for London is to address them.
I want to concentrate on the Conservative position on the issue in case any hon. Member is under the impression that the Conservatives are, and have always been, implacably opposed to congestion charges. In 1996, Lady Olga Maitland, who is no longer in the House, asked whether the Government had any plans to introduce road tolls in London. Steven Norris gave a
104WH
long answer, in which he clearly did not say no. He could simply have said no, but he did not. At the end of his response, he said:
"The Government are rightly more sanguine and cautious."—[Official Report, 10 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 7]
There was no categorical denial of support for congestion charges in London. The section on road congestion in the Tory manifesto talks about introducing new regional traffic control centres, extending the use of variable speed limits, and
"ensuring that local authorities have the necessary powers to act."
Presumably, "necessary powers to act" could include congestion charges and workplace parking charges. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) seemed to advocate support for that system and for Singapore-style charging on entry. I can only anticipate his complaints if a scheme were introduced under which people had to pay a charge each time they went through a zone. The hon. Gentleman seems to be confused about whether he or his party supported that. He argues against the scheme that the Mayor proposes, but argues for the scheme in Singapore.
Richard Ottaway: To save the hon. Gentleman wasting his time, I mentioned the Singapore proposal to show how the scheme could be run more efficiently if it were introduced. As I said at the outset, I am against the proposal, as is the Conservative party, and I voted against it in when we dealt with the GLA Bill in 1999.
Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification, but unfortunately it did not clarify the points that were made, for example, when Steven Norris replied to that question.
The Labour position is one of lukewarm endorsement. If one examines what the Labour spokesman has said in the Greater London Authority, one can see that he is urging the Mayor not to rush the introduction of road charging. The Labour party is in favour in principle, but does not want it done too quickly. The view being expressed in the GLA is not the same as the one being expressed by some Labour Members today.
The Liberal Democrat position has been consistent and clear. In principle, we believe that congestion charges would be helpful and would raise revenue, which is a point that hon. Members have not tackled. Many argued that London Underground is underfunded, including the hon. Member for Croydon, South, who then went on to say that the £100 million that would be raised would be insufficient. He did not take the next logical step, which would have been to explain from where the necessary additional funding would come to make up the shortfall. The charges could play a role, but equally we have made it clear that congestion charges will work only if the public transport improvements have been made and can be seen to have been made. In our submission, we made it clear that it has not been sufficiently improved.
Ms Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tom Brake: I am sorry, but I will not because I must finish in the next 60 seconds, if possible.

105WH
The debate has shed some light on what some hon. Members do not want but, unfortunately, not on what they would want to be introduced instead. I will finish by asking the Minister one question. Will he confirm today that the Government will not interfere in congestion charging schemes other than in areas where there is an overlap with Government interest—the motorway network, for example—and in authorising the scheme and how revenues will be allocated, which is rightfully the Secretary of State's role?
12.12 pm
Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway). In view of the shortness of time, I hope that he will forgive me for giving only simple congratulations, rather than saying the many magnificent things about his career that I would want. He laid down three clear tests, which were of fairness, purpose and efficiency, and demolished the proposals on every one. That clearly demonstrated that we are about to see a real mess in London.
It was notable that, with the exception of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), every hon. Member present completely opposed congestion charges.
Richard Ottaway: What about the Liberals?
Mr. Pickles: I will deal with them in a moment, because I thought that they were all over the place, as always. They were in favour, but against the detail. They think it is a wonderful idea, but do not like how it will work in practice.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) painted an unforgettable image of Harrods as an out-of-town shopping centre, but described Kennington as a community cut in two, saying how expensive it will be to take a sick child by car to visit the doctor. It may be just a few streets away, but it will cost £5 and her contribution was telling. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) spoke about key workers and said that if the Government wanted to bury the toll tax, the Conservatives would co-operate. That would be the case. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) rightly said that this was the wrong scheme in the wrong place at the wrong time. His comments on the No. 86 bus from Romford could work for almost every bus route in London.
I assumed that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate would be present to apologise for the mess created by the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and for allowing the possibility of congestion charges. Her remarks on the issue have been refreshing. It is clear that the measure is about paying for the privilege of owning and using a car. We should forget the poor, because according to the hon. Lady they are not entitled to a car—they have to go by bus. I have seen correspondence that she sent to the Conservative group at the Greater London Assembly in which she said that the minimum wage was there to pay for things such as congestion charges and the toll tax. There are many reasons why the minimum wage was introduced, but I did not think that it was—
Ms Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore advise central London boroughs, such as Westminster and the
106WH
royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, that they should not be levying a combined total of some £130 million in parking charges on the very people whom he now claims to defend?
Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady should talk to her friends, because the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate says that these folk are not entitled to a car. How they managed to slip from Hampstead and Highgate into the centre of town despite being so poor, I have no idea.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) says that the Liberals are in favour of the measure. I think that there is consistency among the Liberals. Within London, by and large, they favour a congestion charge; it does not matter that, in the rest of the country, they are opposed to it. However, I shall make one prediction: the closer we get to congestion charges, the more we shall see Liberal "Focus" leaflets saying that the measure is not quite right, that they do not like it in a particular place and then that they are absolutely opposed. Indeed, we have had a taste of that today.
We can talk about whether the Mayor has already committed £20 million, whether or not we have congestion charging, whether he has signed up to two secret deals, and the fact that the date for introducing the measure jumps between the end of February and the end of March. We want to know who will pay for it. Will it be taxpayers or the poor people of London?
We airily say that we should introduce the measure when the infrastructure can support it and when there have been significant improvements in public transport in London. I know that the Minister never gives way when he is speaking, so I shall make my point now—[Interruption.] I have it on record. I recall asking the Minister's boss how often he had travelled by tube during peak times and he said, "Not for a long time." He had to think back to his school days for the last time that he had travelled at peak time. The Minister says that there have been improvements, but there have been no significant improvements. Most of the underground lines are operating at peak capacity and some of them are operating at 120 per cent. capacity.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South talked about the Central line, but it already moves about 8,000 people every 15 minutes, so where will the capacity come from? London Transport says that it will put 200 new buses on the line. When we ask whether they are new or replacement buses, it says that some are replacement buses but some are virtual buses. I bet that you do not know what a virtual bus is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you are probably the most intelligent person in the Chamber—we will not put that to a vote. A virtual bus is a bus that apparently travels faster. What will that achieve? The answer is an extra 7,000 passengers at peak times, but the Central line carries 8,000 every 15 minutes, so that will make no difference.
Even if the congestion charge is successful and manages to reduce by a small percentage—let us say 5 or 6 per cent.—the number of people coming into the city centre by car, those people will still have to come into the centre and there will be no room on public transport for them. Unless the Minister is about to say that white-gloved guards will be employed on the underground to push people on to the tube at peak

107WH
times, we shall simply see more tube stations closed at those times. The measure will do nothing to reduce congestion and will not help the city. It will just be a way of trying to raise a relatively small sum, once one takes the amount needed to set up the infrastructure into account.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South said that there was a case for giving the Mayor plenty of rope with which to hang himself. That would be one of the most expensive lynchings ever. As an implacable opponent of capital punishment, I must say that this is a unique form of capital punishment, one that punishes our capital. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh dear!"] Well, it was a pun. I thought it was worth doing.
Finally, I should like to set the record straight. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has been looking through Hansard. I cannot remember whether he found something from 1996, 1896 or 1920. Occasionally in the distant past, the Conservative party briefly thought about congestion charges. We now realise that it is a stupid idea. It will not work. We are introducing new policies, so we cannot make any policy commitments, but this matter has been through our policy board and I can state categorically that the Conservative party is opposed in principle to congestion charging.
12.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on securing and introducing this important debate. In the interests of clarity, I should declare an interest. I have a residential property inside the proposed zone. I also have an excellent Member of Parliament to represent me, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who is well thought of not just by me, but by many others in the area.
The debate became quite interesting. I thought at one stage that it would be a battle between Hampstead and Highgate and Vauxhall. A variety of views have been expressed. I should first like to put one important point on the record. The Government have no power to veto the proposed congestion charges. The decision on whether congestion charging should be introduced in central London is a matter for the Mayor. He has an obligation to listen to the views of hon. Members. I am sure that he will pick through Hansard tomorrow, going through most carefully the varying views that have been expressed.
If the hon. Member for Croydon, South will allow me, I shall answer briefly the question posed by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). Unusually, he asked just one question: normally he asks 51. He asked whether the Government would interfere with any plans for congestion or workplace charging outside London. The Government would never interfere in those plans. Outside London, the Government must approve the plans and will do so on their merits. We have no power to interfere with or veto the congestion charging that has been proposed in central London, but we have the power to look at the spending plans, which
108WH
we believe will be available in the next few weeks. We will act appropriately on the basis of the power vested in us by the 1999 Act.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South performed some wonderful and intriguing intellectual gymnastics. He started off in his usual way by saying that this scheme was all based on socialist envy, as if the Mayor or the Government were going to be hard on better-off car owners. Curiously, he moved on to say that it would hit the poor and that it was a regressive tax. That is quite a departure. Perhaps that has been through the policy board too. Conservative Members are now advocates for the poor: I do not think so. Their record has never suggested that—[Interruption.] However much the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) chunters on, he will not convince me that it is the Conservative party that is fighting for the interests of the poor. It is interesting, too, that we heard no alternative from the hon. Member for Croydon, South, nor from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, from whom we heard only that the policy body said that it did not favour congestion charging—end of story.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South made an important point about other parts of the 1999 Act and asked whether the Government had a power of intervention, the answer to which is, alas, no. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we thought there was a need for direct revisions to the transport strategy; they are justified only when the strategy is manifestly counter to Government policy and would be detrimental to areas outside London. I hope that that is helpful. He also mentioned traffic-calming measures in parts of London, which he thought were somehow the Government's fault. I thought that they were introduced by local government.
Richard Ottaway: You gave them the money.
Mr. Jamieson: We gave local authorities generous amounts of money for local transport plans, particularly in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The democratically elected councillors in the areas, some of whom are Conservative party members, decided to introduce the measures; it is for local authorities to take such decisions on behalf of people in the area.
The hon. Gentleman thought that he was giving some clever quotes from the documents before him, but the Labour party view in the mayoral elections was clear: we were opposed to the introduction of congestion charging in the Mayor's first term. The document made it crystal clear—the hon. Gentleman quoted selectively—that we were not opposed to the principle. If we had been, we would not have introduced the GLA Act, which was steered through Parliament so capably by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson).
The Mayor won a mandate in his election and in 2004 he will have to go back to the good people of London, who will judge whether he has fulfilled his mandate.
Richard Ottaway: The front cover of the manifesto says,
"New Labour, new London, no congestion charges."
Is the Minister saying that that is not what it means?
Mr. Jamieson: It meant no congestion charges in the Mayor's first term. If the hon. Gentleman reads the small print, he will see that that is what it says. I see that he has only got to the front page; he may be colouring the thing in, and not actually reading the words inside it. The mischievous expression on his face shows that the hon. Gentleman knows what it says inside and knew it before he spoke in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall made a powerful speech in which she said that there should be a public inquiry. The Mayor will have listened to her view and that of other hon. Members. Under the 1999 Act, the Government have no power to do what my hon. Friend suggests, but the Mayor can call a public inquiry if he thinks it appropriate. Until my hon. Friend's speech, I had not realised that Harrods is outside the zone and that the Flipper fish bar in Kennington road, which does excellent fish and chips, is inside it. My hon. Friend said that women would be forced out of their cars. I see plenty of men and women on my regular journeys on the underground and the 159 bus.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), in a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents, said that the proposal had no tangible benefits. I hope that the Mayor will take careful note of what he said, because he always speaks well on these matters.
Richard Ottaway: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: No. I want to refer to what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said. He asked whether we could step in, but the GLA Act does not give us any power or authority to do so on these matters.
In a powerful and impassioned speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate made the important point that many people do not have access to cars. About 40 per cent. of my constituents probably do not.
It has been an important debate and, as usual, I am allowed little time to deal with all the matters raised. If any hon. Member feels that I have not dealt with an issue in sufficient detail and would like to drop me a line, I will ensure that they receive a written response.
Richard Ottaway rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am going to use my discretion and say that time is up—
Richard Ottaway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up. I am not taking a point of order. We move to our next debate, introduced by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard), on the appropriate use of blood in the national health service.

Blood Use (NHS)
12.30 pm
Mr. Dai Havard: The appropriate use of blood in the national health service is the subject of debate and I would first like to explain how I became interested in it. A newspaper article in October about the possible halving of blood supplies as a result of donors' fears about Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease testing alerted me to it. The article was about the position in Ireland, and it was clear from it and from subsequent research that there is a current problem with sustaining the supply of blood and that it could be jeopardised further.
The experience in Ireland was of crisis proportions. From a base of bad experience with other blood-related problems such as human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C, the confidence of donors in Ireland was already reduced, and effectively it crashed with the human variant CJD screening proposals. The net effect was the cancellation of surgery and the introduction of haemovigilance officers—the so-called "blood police"—into every hospital in Ireland in order to deal with the crisis caused by low supplies of an increasingly scarce and valuable commodity.
We know that in the coming year the United Kingdom will face an acute shortage of blood, which could be compounded if the problem is not properly tackled and the public given sufficient confidence to continue to donate blood. I am a blood donor and I will continue to donate my blood—and I encourage others to do so.
My concerns were heightened over Christmas when I sat at home in Wales listening to emergency radio appeals for donors because stocks were running out. I fear that when this shortage comes, non-emergency patients in the NHS—people with cancer, for example—will suffer most while the dwindling blood stocks are rightly used for life-saving procedures.
The National Blood Service is on record as saying that testing for vCJD will cause a donations crisis—perhaps as much as a 50 per cent. drop in supplies. I believe and I am glad that you, Minister, are planning for that eventuality. The appropriate use of the blood working group has been set up to
"ensure the most effective use of blood as an increasingly scarce resource"—
a recognition that blood will be a scarce resource.
In October last year the chief medical officer held a conference, at which our colleague, the Health Minister, Mr. Hutton, said:
"One of the important issues discussed was how to avoid the unnecessary use of blood in clinical practice in the face of decreasing supplies and numbers of blood donors".
The Government clearly recognise the problem, and it is being addressed. I have been attempting to ascertain exactly how those deliberations concluded. To date my replies from the Department have been disappointing—hence my initiation of the debate.
Before Christmas, stories flourished in the media of people who had been transfused with blood donated by donors who had since gone on to develop vCJD. Neither the Department nor the NBS has challenged the authenticity of these stories. One alarming story—it was

111WH
not denied by the NBS or Professor Banner—was that in an attempt to control the spread of vCJD, the Department was considering banning everyone who has ever received a blood transfusion from donating blood or their organs. My research has shown that if such a decision were ever made, it would instantly reduce the blood donor base by 15 per cent. Will you give me an assurance today that neither your Department nor the NBS is considering preventing recipients of blood transfusions from donating blood again?
We know that blood donations in the UK are already in decline. According to the Minister's predecessor, John Denham, between 1994 and 1999 blood donations fell by 17 per cent. Last year the NBS tried to reverse the downturn with a high-profile celebrity campaign for donations. If the figures given by your colleague Yvette Cooper to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 14 January are correct—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The hon. Gentleman should address Ministers by their constituency, not by their name.
Mr. Havard: I apologise. Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If the answer given on 14 January is correct, the campaign to which I refer is at best reducing the speed of decline. Last year saw another substantial reduction of 3.4 per cent. These figures led me to look at how blood is used. I am concerned both in terms of public responsibility and on a party political basis. As a party, we are trying to bring massive reform to the NHS. This is an area in which we are needlessly under attack.
According to the Department's figures, about 30 per cent of blood is used for cancer patients. I declare an interest; my constituency has one of the highest numbers of cancer patients in the UK. That is a significant problem that needs to be addressed by a step change. My information suggests that in practice 40 per cent. of blood is used for cancer patients, to overcome the debilitating effects of anaemia and related fatigue. Fatigue is consistently listed by cancer patients and patient groups as the worst side effect of treatment. Last year, more than 2,000 cancer patients responded to Cancer BACUP's advertisement on the subject of cancer-related fatigue. The International Myeloma Foundation said that it would like Government assurances that cancer patients would not suffer in the light of any future shortage of blood supplies.
I reinforce the IMF's sentiments and ask the Minister for an assurance that cancer patients will not suffer unnecessarily in the event of the NBS having to restrict blood supplies. To do otherwise would make a farce of the Government's cancer care plan. The Minister will recognise that the extensive additional resources given to the NHS to fight cancer are much needed and welcome. They will do a good deal to redress previous neglect. How we make a step forward change rather than mere incremental change to the health service is a political question that must be addressed. The plan was meant to help achieve that, but in terms of blood it could be undermined if we are not careful.
112WH
What options are there to the use of blood for cancer patients, I asked myself when examining the figures, to help to avoid the impending crisis? I was pleased to accept an offer from the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), to attend a meeting with officials, along with the NBS and other parts of the Department, to discuss what could be done. I thank them for brokering that meeting. I took along a leading haematologist, a Macmillan nurse who is a practitioner in the field, and a representative of the drug industry, to discuss options to using such a large proportion of the blood supply.
It became clear during the discussion that using the drug Erythropoietin to treat chronic fatigue in cancer patients could provide not only a better standard of care but also free up most of the 30 or 40 per cent. of the blood supply used in cancer treatment. Many leading specialists believe that transfusing blood to cancer patients is unnecessary. A leading haematologist, Dr. Ivor Cavill, says that
"the majority of cancer patients treated for anaemia are needlessly exposed to transfusions when there are better alternatives available".
At the meeting we heard the experience of the Macmillan nurses at Whipps Cross hospital in London, where they have adopted the practice of using Erythropoietin in place of transfusions, which is appropriate for 70 per cent. of their cancer patients.
There is a debate that drugs may have a curative as well as a palliative effect. I believe that they provide a better base for the other treatments to take effect. I am carrying out more research in that area and I will be pleased to supply information to the Department. I examined also comparisons with European countries. There has been much talk recently about developing our health service to European standards.
Currently, in France, a cancer patient is six times more likely to be treated in this modern way, rather than by receiving a blood transfusion. In Spain, that would be seven times more likely, and it would be eight times more likely in Italy. American patients are 100 times more likely to receive such treatment, rather than the one that we have used over the years.
European standards are important, and we could match them quickly. That is the sort of step change to which I referred, rather than an incremental change. In Europe, modern options are used as a matter of course. Other countries preserve their blood supplies for emergencies and surgery. A report in yesterday's Evening Standard mentioned the possibility of sending our cancer patients to Greece. If they went to Greece, their chances of being treated with the use of drugs would be greater than those in Great Britain, although I do not know the exact figures because I have not had a chance to undertake the research.
Economic factors are involved. Obviously, drugs cost money and the way in which blood is costed must be examined. My research, which is based on the Government's figures, shows that if modern blood options were used for cancer patients, 250,000 bed days a year would be freed up. I gave that information during the meeting on 5 December. The argument that the drugs would cost must be set against potentially massive savings in other areas. The use of drugs would also deal with the chronic problems of bed blocking and insufficient resources in the health service.

113WH
In a week during which we have been pilloried as a result of stories about people waiting on trolleys in emergency departments and unable to get beds, it is disappointing that I am still waiting for an answer about the information that I gave in December. I understood that the meeting's outcome was that the costs would be examined. The Department could not cost them properly and needed to find a way in which to do that. I have not received notification of any progress on the matter.
The Department was also to examine broadening people's involvement in the debate on blood policy. The issue of blood is about much more than transfusions; it must be examined in the round. Those who are involved with only transfusions may have a narrow perspective of the matter, and a broader perspective must be given.
I have received no recognition that things have moved forward. Obvious benefits would stem from the cancer plan and cancer patients' quality of life would be improved. Standards of care could be improved, and we could meet quickly European and international standards. We could move forward the reform agenda that is necessary for the NHS.
As a spending Ministry, the Department of Health must look to the Treasury. How can the Department demonstrate and account for the effective use of reformed resources, processes and procedures if it cannot answer questions such as mine about the effect and economic implications of changing procedures? The Department must address these matters quickly.
There would be benefits in moving to modern drug treatments for anaemia and fatigue-related treatment. The exposure of many people to transmission-related diseases would be reduced. The move would free up about 30 per cent. of the blood supply, and help to protect it. It would avoid a crisis in supplies and avoid also cancer patients being put in a position in which palliative care for them is penalised in order to allow emergencies to be dealt with. Better treatment standards would be available for cancer patients, and modern European standards could be adopted. It would free up quickly 250,000 bed days a year, and help with that crisis.
Such a change is not only possible, but would be effective and efficient for patient care and best practice. There is justification for it on grounds of both patients and economics.
The change would be politically advantageous. It is no secret that I must defend where I am and what I argue about the health service. We must make step changes. I will discuss how we can progress on the issues with my colleagues in Wales, because some involve devolved matters.
I remind the Minister of the assurances that I would like. I want confirmation that those who have given blood will be accepted as future donors, and an assurance that cancer patients will not suffer in the face of dwindling blood stocks. The economic case for using drugs and saving bed days, and ways of accounting for that, must be a priority for the Department of Health. Will the Minister consider broadening the involvement of the new transfusion committee, or using other methods to develop a consistent blood policy throughout the UK? That must be a matter of urgency.
I apologise for my indiscretion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House thanks the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) for his speech. The Minister to whom he referred two or three times is the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). I call the Minister to reply.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) on his success in having secured the debate. He has taken a special interest in the subject for some time, and from listening to his speech today, we can all appreciate the depth of his knowledge and expertise in a technical area about which I have had to learn a great deal recently. He raised some important issues in a clear analysis of how he believes that we can make progress in the national health service and in providing services to patients in need.
We should place on record that everyone in this country owes an enormous debt of gratitude to blood donors. I am delighted that my hon. Friend is himself a donor. Every year, about 2 million people take significant time out from busy lives to give blood. Having enough blood in the NHS is vital. As my hon. Friend said, the supply is not endless, and we must be careful to use blood efficiently and effectively.
I am pleased that the National Blood Service currently meets all NHS demands for blood. There are occasional media claims to the contrary, and we hear scare stories about blood just as we do about other matters. There have been no emergency appeals for blood in England for the past three years, so we have managed to keep a position of balance, which is important.
The blood service is itself constantly looking for ways in which to improve the way in which it operates to ensure that it has the maximum amount of blood possible. It is not complacent, and it does not feel that because it has been successful so far, it can relax. It is making huge efforts to anticipate and deal with possible health challenges, including the unknown risk from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which my hon. Friend mentioned.
There is a constant drive to maintain our blood stocks and to introduce new scientific developments to make blood safer and to provide options to the use of human blood. As science and technology develop, we are beginning to see some exciting alternatives. My officials told me about the possibility of bloodless surgery, an exciting prospect for the future that may become a reality.
The blood service is doing much to modernise the way in which it operates and to draw in as much blood as possible. In encouraging the public, it is trying to ensure that giving blood is not so time consuming, so that people do not have to wait for literally hours. When people go to give blood these days, they need to complete a fairly detailed questionnaire about their background. The blood service is trying to introduce a system of sending out the questionnaire to donors in advance so that they can complete it in advance. They can then give blood on arrival, perhaps in their lunch hour, and get back to work. That is an important improvement.

115WH
We must ensure that we seek blood donors in the places where they are and at the hours and places that suit them, after work if necessary, in shopping centres, or wherever possible, to try to maximise the supply of blood in the service. That is crucial.
We are trying to make the best use of available blood by encouraging clinicians to use it only when strictly necessary. That involves changing clinical attitudes and behaviour and putting the issue higher up the agenda. We are considering the increased use of safe, clinically appropriate and effective alternatives, which my hon. Friend highlighted. These are the criteria by which we judge almost everything in the health service—whether things are safe, clinically effective and appropriate, and cost-effective. Examples include Erythropoietin and the use of iron supplements for treating anaemia, and the use of synthetics such as recombinant clotting factors for treating haemophiliacs. Whenever we can develop new ways of working as part of our modernisation and reform agenda, as my hon. Friend emphasised, it is crucial that we do so. Making a step change in progress such as he outlined is important.
We are trying to develop plans to tackle a possible reduction in donors following the introduction of CJD screening tests. We believe that the tests may be introduced in three to five years' time, so we have a little time in which to plan for that contingency. However, we are aware that there could be a dramatic reduction in donors, and robust plans need to be in place to meet that contingency.
The safety of the United Kingdom blood supply is maintained through independent regulatory systems and through audit. However, there is an element of risk in every medical treatment or intervention that involves blood. The serious hazards of transfusion team has conducted four major studies, which have demonstrated that blood transfusion in the UK is safe. It is becoming safer, due to improving technology and clinical audit, but further improvements can be made. It is important to ensure that patients receive top-quality services, and that maximum safety is achieved. All hon. Members will be aware of the tragedies that have befallen people because of infected blood products, and of their families' feelings of devastation. Therefore, we must ensure that blood is as safe as possible.
We have taken precautionary measures against the theoretical risk that vCJD can be transmitted through blood. I stress that that is a theoretical risk at present. The white cells are removed from all transfused blood by a process called leucodepletion, because the experts consider that CJD is most likely to be transmitted through the white cells. We no longer use plasma from the UK in the manufacture of blood products, to ensure maximum safety. These precautions have been reviewed by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee on several occasions, and it has concluded that no further precautionary measures are currently necessary to protect public health. However, we are continuing to look at other possible risk reduction measures with regard to CJD, in the light of new scientific developments and advice.
My hon. Friend asked whether everyone who has received donated blood will be disallowed from donating. A risk assessment is being conducted into
116WH
that. No decisions have yet been made, but the Department has engaged an expert adviser to consider the risk assessment, and whether to exclude transfusion recipients from giving blood. If we were to decide to do that, it would be another precautionary measure, because we are dealing with a scientific area where we do not know what would be the case. However, we are guided by previous experience, and the last thing in the world that we want is for people to be affected by infected blood. I undertake to keep my hon. Friend informed about the outcome of that process.
We must make the best use of the blood that we have. A major conference, the better blood transfusion conference, was held in October 2001. Its goal was to set the priorities for making the best use of the resource.
Within the coming few months, we intend to issue an action plan for the NHS. It will adopt a patient-focused approach: we have tried to involve patients in the process, because it is important to consult those who receive blood, as well as clinicians and other professionals.
The action plan will probably include guidance for clinicians on assessing patients' treatment needs—including the use of their own blood—and information for patients about transfusion and its alternatives, so that they possess the knowledge to be able to make informed decisions. That is an important thread that runs through all of our reforms of the NHS. It is one of our priorities to try to empower patients by giving them sufficient information and skills to be able to have a mature partnership with clinicians in making decisions about what is best for them, with regard to their health care.
A new national blood transfusion committee has been established to study practice. My hon. Friend stated that he wanted the broadest possible cross-section of people to be involved in that committee, and I assure him that it has representation not only from the royal colleges, the scientific and professional bodies, clinicians and the National Blood Service, but from patients, but is directly linked to a network of regional committees and committees in hospital trusts, so it is informed by what is being practised in the NHS.
My hon. Friend has referred to his meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health. Following that meeting and my hon. Friend's intervention, we have taken a fresh look at the remit of the committee, and we have made it explicit that it covers exploring and facilitating the implementation of methods to reduce the need for blood transfusions. We have made it clear that we are considering alternatives.
Three working parties are considering how we can ensure the most effective and efficient use of the blood that we have. They are considering the alternatives, too, including autologous transfusion, all forms of blood substitute therapies, and the feasibility of bloodless surgery units, as I mentioned. They are also working on contingency plans for prolonged periods of blood shortages. The groups are representative of a range of people, including surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, paediatric experts, haematologists and patients. The recommendations of the groups will be considered by the committee later this year and will be promulgated across the service.

117WH
On Erythropoietin or EPO, as I understand it is referred to colloquially, I am aware that evidence is growing that by maintaining the patient's haemoglobin at near-normal levels, EPO may improve some patients' response to treatment, especially radiotherapy. It can improve quality of life by making patients feel better and less tired. Tiredness is a problem for many patients with cancer. The drug is licensed for that purpose.
Clinicians are free to prescribe the drug when they think that it is beneficial to the patient. It is a core part of the NHS that clinicians should make appropriate decisions in the interests of their patients. There are on-going trials at the Christie and Royal Marsden hospitals on the use of EPO for cancer patients. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested in the results when they are available.
We in the Department of Health have considered the issue of using EPO more widely on cancer patients. We have tried to make some costings, as my hon. Friend has said. The costings put forward by those who would like EPO to be used more widely in the service include the number of bed days that could be saved as a result of patients being not transfused, but instead being injected with EPO. I urge caution on the subject because many patients who are occupying a bed for a transfusion are also receiving other services and treatments, and a direct substitution of EPO for a transfusion would then not necessarily result in saved bed days. Although my hon. Friend has raised an important issue, there would be no direct equation.
Cost is also an issue. Our estimate is that if all cancer patients—and EPO is not suitable for them all—received EPO, the cost would increase by four to eight times. That is an important issue for us to consider. I must say that the estimate makes some assumptions.
118WH
There is limitation on existing data and there is no typical treatment regime for cancer patients, so there are some variables in the estimates.
Mr. Havard: Would the Minister make available that information, including what criteria were used and how that cost was calculated?
Ms Blears: It is early days for costing such developments. I am happy to involve my hon. Friend in the discussions, but this is a new subject for us, and we should be conscious of the range of variables.
It is possible for patients to self-administer Erythropoietin. That might result in some saving, but the patients would probably need a couple of out-patient visits in order to be trained and assessed. That is a complex issue, but it is interesting to explore it, and we will continue to do so.
I hope that the initiatives that I have outlined for maximising the blood supply—making the best clinically effective use of the blood that we have—and considering scientific alternatives add up to a coherent approach. We are trying to ensure that we not only get the best deal for the NHS but, more importantly, provide the right services for patients who can take advantage of emerging technologies.
We still have an immense amount of work to do to make sure that we are providing the best quality services, but that work is in hand. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised such important issues, and we shall return to them. I am grateful to him for his vigorous analysis. The passion with which he has presented his argument shows how enthusiastic he is that the NHS should survive and prosper.

Radon Gas (South Devon)
1 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I thank the Minister for the Environment for attending the debate. His attendance shows the Government's concern about such issues. The right hon. Gentleman's response will be interesting, not only to hon. Members who represent constituencies in Devon, but to those with Cornish constituencies. Since 1992, on average more than 50 people have died each year of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Over the past three years, the number has crept up to about 80 people a year. In contrast, lung cancer causes about 37,000 deaths a year, of which 33,000 are attributable to smoking and 2,000 to 3,000 attributable to radon gas. That puts the matter into perspective.
Radon is a naturally occurring odourless and colourless gas that is formed by the radioactive decay of naturally occurring uranium. It travels through fissures in the subsoil where it usually disperses, but it can accumulate in buildings. Proper ventilation is the solution and, paradoxically, energy conservation measures often make matters worse by trapping the radon gas in buildings.
We receive never-ending advice about personal health and safety. We should eat less fat, more fruit and vegetables and strive towards a healthier lifestyle, yet the importance of reducing high radiation exposure for an estimated quarter of a million people living in homes with excessive radon levels may not have been given the attention that it deserves. There is a significant increase in the lifetime risk of lung cancer for such people.
Devon and Cornwall are particularly badly affected by radon and levels beyond 200 bq/cu m, which is the measurement for radon, are not unusual. At that concentration, the Government's advice is that remedial measures should be taken. Other European countries affected by radon have taken similar action at 200 bq/cu m. Fortunately, Westminster Members of Parliament are spared high radiation exposure, because our main debating Chamber and the extensive cellars, which have been tested, have extremely low exposure to radon. That is mirrored by areas around flood plains and rivers throughout Britain. The Chamber, I am glad to say, has an especially low level.
The risk of lung cancer from radon dramatically increases for smokers as against non-smokers. Analysis carried out by the World Health Organisation in 1996 revealed that, out of 1,000 cases of lung cancer victims who were exposed to radon, 20 were non-smokers, but 980 were smokers. There is a huge multiplier risk for those exposed to radon who smoke as against those who are exposed to radon who do not smoke. That should be distinguished from the additional or accumulative risk that we would expect. Smoking and radon gas multiply the risk to a dramatic degree.
People who spend a lifetime in their homes where radon concentration is more than 200 bq/cu m show lung cancer rates about 20 per cent. higher than those whose radon levels are 20 bq/cu m. Where the concentrations reach 400 bq/cu m, the estimated increase is 40 per cent. About 250,000 people are living in homes with radon levels above the level of 400 bq/cu m. Of course, the workplace is subject to special legislation and employers are liable to ensure safe levels
120WH
of radon in factories and warehouses, but since those places are usually draughty and airy, there is little risk of a radon problem. In fact, I do not think that there has been a factory or a warehouse in which radon levels have been considered to be sufficiently high to take action.
There is no getting away from the fact that radiation exposure to the public from radon gas is more than 1,000 times greater than that from the entire nuclear industry. John Miles of the Nuclear Radiological Protection Board said:
"if there was a threshold dose beyond which all types of radiation was harmless and if such a threshold was as high as the doses that the public received from Radon then most of the expensive protection that the nuclear industry has to apply would be totally redundant."
The final piece of evidence that demonstrates the danger of radon is that there have been 1,850 more lung cancer deaths than expected among miners who were exposed to radon, compared with 480 excess deaths from all types of cancers from Japanese nuclear bomb survivors. Those statistics show the scale of the problem.
Areas affected by radon are those where more than 1 per cent. of the houses are likely to have concentrations of radon above the action level, which is 200 bq/cu m. In 1990, the NRPB recommended that the level should be 200 bq/cu m, averaged over a year. One bequerel is equal to one radioactive disintegration per second. That is 10 times the measured United Kingdom average radon exposure, which is 20 bq/cu m. Two hundred bq/cu m is the limit which is considered to be safe. Action is required over that level.
Based on the assumption that all doses of radiation present some risk of cancer, the action level represents a risk of one in 30 of lung cancer from radon gas over a lifetime. That is 10 times higher than the average UK risk of one in 300 from all natural sources of radiation and one in 20 from smoking. Where concentrations are above the action level, the NRPB recommends reduction of concentrations in existing buildings. Additionally, in certain localities in affected areas, the board recommends that preventive measures should be taken against radon entering new buildings.
Areas affected by radon are defined using maps based on radon concentrations measured in the 400,00 houses surveyed to date. Approximately 40,000 of those homes were found to have radon concentrations above the 200 bq/cu m limit. From the survey data, the NRPB has estimated that approximately 100,000 dwellings throughout Britain had radon concentrations above the action level. Most were in England, with Cornwall and Devon being the most significantly affected areas. For example, in the Truro postcode district, the NRPB found that 29 per cent. of dwellings had radon concentrations above the action level. I have mentioned that to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), who unfortunately could not be here today. In Plymouth, the figure was only 14 per cent.
The worrying factor is that only about 10 per cent. of people who have been told that the levels of radon in their homes is above the action level have taken any remedial action. It is as if people believe that their homes are impregnable to radon gas because they cannot see or hear it. Evidence suggests that there is little or no perception of risk and no recognition of the danger. Once the front door is bolted, people feel that nothing can touch them, even though radon gas could be seeping up through the floorboards.

121WH
Since 1998, 80,000 Devon homes have been tested. Of those, 85 per cent. are privately owned. Can the Minister tell me whether anything has been done to ensure the safety of people living in the 10 per cent. of homes that are run by local authorities and housing associations? Many tenants are not aware of the risk and many local authorities have not taken action. Statistically, people living in local authority housing and housing association property are more likely to be smokers.
How should the problem associated with radon gas best be tackled? Radon enters the building primarily from airflow from the underlying ground. Several measures can be taken to achieve protection for occupants and to reduce radon levels. The techniques for reducing radon exposure in new and existing dwellings include under-floor extraction, improved ventilation under suspended timber floors, positive ventilation and sealing cracks and gaps in solid concrete floors. The problem is that few builders will undertake that work because they do not have the skills or the training. If one can find a builder, the cost is more than £1,000, which is out of the reach of pensioners and low-income groups. I make that point because my constituency has the eighth highest proportion of elderly people in the country.
I am advised that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has not capped individual local authority budgets for radon testing, which is up to the discretion of each local authority. I should like to pay tribute to the excellent chief environmental health officer in South Hams district council, Peter Smith. I shall also mention the British Geographical Survey, which has been enormously helpful, and the splendid help that I have had from the House of Commons Library, and especially from Donna Gore of the science and environment section who wrote an excellent paper on radon in 1997 that has not been as widely read as it should have been. I mentioned South Hams district council because the environmental health officer told me that only six radon protection grants have been awarded in the district since 1989, and that only 40 per cent. of the district was surveyed for radon in the late 1980s.
The Government have halted free radon surveys, but the National Radiological Protection Board has unspent money for testing. In South Hams, 20 to 50 per cent. of the housing stock surveyed was above the 200 bq/cu m action level. As for my constituency, the areas affected are not, as I thought they would be, the granite outcrop around Dartmoor, but include Kingsbridge, Dartmouth, Salcombe, Thurlestone, Slapton, Stokenham, Stoke Fleming, Loddiswell and South Brent, where some of the highest figures have been recorded. Properties have been identified in those areas that are 10 to 30 per cent. above the 200 bq/cu m action level. South Hams is one of the worst affected areas in Devon, but only six radon grants have been made.
Radon levels and testing are especially relevant in buildings that are more than 10 years old. Since 1991, guidance on protective measures against radon has been included in building regulations, and in 1999 the Building Research Establishment and the former Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions have produced updated guidance on protective
122WH
measures to reduce the risk to occupants of exposure to radon. That new guidance reflects the greater knowledge of radon-prone areas and the advances made in developing practical, cost-effective measures. That does not, however, apply to the majority of homes that are more than 10 years old. The Government have stated that 3.8 million new houses need to be built by 2011, although that will probably not happen. Of those houses, 700,000 will be in the south-west. Will the Minister confirm that all new houses built in the south-west will be obliged to have radon insulation? We are not discussing money, but raising public awareness. The task is getting home owners to respond to a threat that they can neither see nor smell. It has not been properly recognised as a health risk, but it has been exacerbated by legislation on energy efficiency.
The Government are aware of the problem, but their promotions and publicity have not had the intended effect. Perhaps the media hype about Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is caused by the fear that it is infectious, but 3,000 per cent. more people die from radon exposure than from CJD each year. Public understanding remains poor, although there have been successive local authority programmes since 1987, and a more detailed discussion on a three-year rolling programme announced by the Minister last July that involves more than 30 local authorities. That ends next year, and the question remains about the Government's plans to build on the programme in light of these dangers.
Before 1996, the Government offered free radon tests to all, but since then offers of free radon measurement have been by invitation only—I do not know anybody in my constituency who has had an invitation. The radon test is safe and extremely simple. A small plastic container about the size of a door knob is used, and it contains a piece of plastic that is sensitive to alpha particles, which are emitted by radon. The public can obtain the test through the post for about £35 from the NRPB at an address that I have, but I shall not give in this debate. The public take-up of the test has been disappointing. I have made a meal of the dangers of radon gas, and I do not want it to be construed as a scare story that many of us are breathing in carcinogenic particles as we sleep, but people in the west country, especially in Devon and Cornwall, need to be aware of the risks and the tests available.
For almost no cost, the Government could do much more to raise public awareness through publicity campaigns and encouraging local authority initiatives. We all know the risks of smoking, and we all erroneously believe that there are risks from nuclear energy, but few have comprehended the health risks from radon exposure and that the annual radiation dose can be dramatically increased by living in the wrong part of the country in well-insulated homes. I hope that now that I have raised the public health and safety issue, the media will take up the cudgels and that the Government will consider new initiatives and further action so that some 2,000 to 3,000 lives can be saved in this country each year.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) has sought the permission of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), the Minister and myself to make a brief contribution, and I am happy to call him.
1.15 pm
Andrew George: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will be brief. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). Perhaps I should call him my hon. Friend as we share so many interests, and often, as on this occasion, share the analysis.
The hon. Gentleman raised extremely important issues. I am keen to have clearer guidance on how local authorities in south Devon and elsewhere can help householders to reduce the risk posed by radon. In Cornwall, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of the six local authorities and one on the Isles of Scilly only one, Kerrier, is part of the Government's scheme on this. In Penwith in the west of Cornwall, 10,500 of 19,00 properties have a radon risk level of more than 30 per cent., which certainly requires action. The matter is of deep concern.
In a parliamentary answer given on 29 November, the hon. Gentleman was told that £705 million in housing capital grants is available for this year. However, it is not known exactly how much of that is to be directed towards addressing the problem of radon, which the hon. Gentleman has articulately put before us today. The Minister and the Department must ensure that the grants available are more targeted to address the serious and important issue.
1.18 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on making a well-documented and serious case for greater focus on the problem of radon. He drew attention to the fact that far more people—I think that he said 3,000—die each year from radon poisoning than from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Although we know that the main cause of death from lung cancer is, overwhelmingly, smoking, a significant proportion of lung cancer deaths is nevertheless attributable to radon.
The hon. Gentleman made a powerful comparison between the risks associated with mining, or those affecting survivors of the Japanese A bomb, and the mortality risk from radon. That the issue is serious is not in dispute. I will try to answer his questions as precisely as I can in the time available.
In 1990, following advice from the National Radiological Protection Board, the Government set a radon action level of 200 bq/cu m, as the hon. Gentleman said. That is half the 1987 level. It was deliberately tightened on advice. It is about 10 times the average UK level of exposure and is the standard used. Where radon levels greater than that are found, householders are strongly advised to take action to reduce them. It is estimated that, at that level, there is a lifetime risk of 3 to 5 per cent. for the general population of contracting lung cancer. For non-smokers, the risk will be about 1 to 3 per cent., but, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the risk is much greater for those who smoke: approximately 10 to 15 per cent.
Following research by the NRPB in the mid-1980s, which identified that radon was a problem in the UK, successive Governments have introduced measures to try to combat its effects. Initially, those centred on offering free measurement to the areas most affected. In
124WH
England, that meant Devon, Cornwall, Somerset, Northamptonshire and Derbyshire. Later, following extensive mapping, the measurement programme was extended to include many other parts of the country in which high radon levels were found.
In 1998, we completed a programme to ensure that every household in England with a more than 5 per cent. probability of exceeding the radon action level had received the offer of a free measurement. Some 400,000 measurements have been made, at no cost to the householder, since the programme began in 1987, and about 40,000 homes—one in 10—were found to be above the action level. In relation to the number of measurements carried out in Devon, I know that the hon. Gentleman was given a figure of 80,000, but having updated the database we now think that it is just over 94,000. The large majority were paid for by the Government at an approximate cost of £2.5 million. In Devon, 7,100 homes were found to be above the action level. It is striking that the highest level found was 5,300 bq/cu m. High levels have been found in several areas of the county.
Where a home is found to be above the action level, the householder is faced with the problem of what to do next. The various courses of action are set out in booklets prepared by the Department, which provide general advice to householders about radon, specific guidance about the types of remedial measures that can be employed, and information for those who are buying or selling houses in radon-affected areas. Householders can obtain additional advice on remediation methods over the telephone from the Building Research Establishment, which runs a hotline under contract from the Department.
The costs of remedial action can vary markedly. Establishing better airflow under suspended floors may be all that is necessary for a home that is just a little above the action level. If the problem has been caused because airbricks have been overgrown by plants or blocked in other ways, it can be solved fairly easily at no monetary cost.
The most effective method of reducing radon levels, which is necessary for the highest levels, is the sump system. The sump is a small void about the size of a bucket that is dug under a solid ground floor and to which a pipe and a fan are attached. The fan gently draws the radon-laden air from underneath the floor and prevents it from entering the home. The cost of such a system varies depending on its exact method of installation, but it is typically between £600 and £1,000. Its installation is not beyond the ability of an experienced DIY enthusiast—in which case the cost would drop significantly—although one should be careful about that.
Mr. Steen: Some homeowners may wish to bury their information about radon gas because they think that if their levels are as high as 5,000, or anything above 400, that might affect the price of their freehold. Is there anything that the Minister can say or do about that?
Mr. Meacher: The right way to deal with that is to have in place a system that draws off the radon and can be demonstrated to make the house effectively free of radon in the sense that any radon that is present is below

125WH
the action level. No Government can offer subsidies for householders to maintain value, but we can and will ensure that the cause of any likelihood of reduced value is properly addressed at public cost.
Although radon remedial work can be expensive, it need not necessarily be so, and even the most expensive options are similar in price to other building works that householders may have to face to keep their properties in good condition.
There are provisions to help those least able to pay for radon remedial works. Local authorities have discretionary powers to award house renovation grants and home repair assistance to help with the cost of radon remedial work. Renovation grants have no upper limit and are not means-tested. Home repair assistance is limited to a maximum of £5,000 per application, which is reasonably generous. It is not means-tested, but the applicant must be 60 or more years old, or on a state benefit.
A regulatory reform order before the House will give local authorities the power to offer subsidised loans or an equity release scheme for home renovation, rather than grants, as is currently the case. Local authorities will be able to continue assisting radon remedial works under that general power, but will have the freedom to decide whether to fund the works through a grant or a loan and will not be obliged to apply a means test.
The hon. Gentleman asked about new build, and quoted a figure of 700,000 homes expected in the south-west, which I presume is accurate. Under the building regulations, guidance designed to prevent radon from becoming a problem in newly built homes was first issued in 1990, and covered Devon and Cornwall. Later, that guidance was extended to cover parts of Somerset, Northamptonshire and Derbyshire. The protective measures were updated, and the area covered was greatly increased in 1999, to take into account the latest research on building methods and the survey work carried out by the NRPB and the British Geological Survey. Basic protection, required under the regulation, comprises the modification of the damp-proof membrane so that it forms a radon-proof barrier that extends across the whole of the ground floor of the dwelling, including through the walls. In areas of higher radon potential, full radon protection may be required. That comprises the radon-proof barrier, supplemented by a sump in case it should be necessary to draw the radon-laden air from beneath the building.
When the radon programme first began 15 years ago, it was widely believed that householders whose homes were above the action level would take prompt action.
126WH
Research in recent years has shown that that was correct only to a limited extent. Approximately 10 to 20 per cent. of such householders are thought to have taken action to reduce their radon levels, a figure that I find disappointing. However, the research discovered that many householders would be prepared to carry out remedial work if they were given greater support in the process from a source that they knew and trusted.
In 1998, we carried out pilot studies in partnership with Derbyshire Dales, Cherwell and Mendip district councils. The local authorities provided the public face of the initiative and ensured that it was responsive to local needs and knowledge. The Department provided resources to support the local authority. The pilot study showed that that approach worked well and could double the background remediation rate. That is helpful, but we still have a long way to go.
The support provided by the Department, largely using contractors, includes free radon measurements to identify homes above the action level, and to confirm that remedial action has worked. Expert NRPB advice was provided to local authorities, the local medical community and householders about the health effects of radon. Expert advice from the Building Research Establishment was supplied to the local authorities, local builders and housing professionals and householders about remediation methods. Locally branded publicity materials were provided to meet the local authority's needs, and consultants helped the local authorities draw up their action plans and handle logistics.
In 2000, following discussions with the local authorities, we rolled out a programme based on the lessons learned in the pilot studies. A good practice guide was prepared to disseminate the information. The areas of 78 local authorities were transected by areas with 5 per cent. or more probability that homes would be above the action level, and they were invited to participate. I am pleased to say that 33 authorities have volunteered to work with us. Three authorities in Devon are participating in a programme—South Hams district council, Torbay district council and West Devon borough council. Their plans have, unfortunately, been delayed because of foot and mouth disease, but we look forward now to working with those three authorities to re-activate their plans in the near future. We shall carry out a review of the roll-out programme when sufficient progress has been made to allow us to determine how successful it has been and I hope that that will be before the end of this year. We shall then make our judgment on the future direction of the Government's radon programme.

Dundee Airport
1.30 pm
Mr. Iain Luke: I am delighted to have secured this debate and to bring to the Government's attention the need to explore all avenues to promote the development of Dundee airport.
I have tried for some time following my contribution to the debate in this Chamber on regional aviation, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), to focus on what can be done to increase the use of the important economic and transportation feature that serves Dundee and the surrounding areas of north Tayside, Angus and north-east Fife. I am happy to acknowledge the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) to ensure that the services at Dundee airport, which is in his constituency, are enhanced and improved.
I made it clear during the earlier debate on this matter that the economic viability of peripheral areas of the United Kingdom, such as Dundee, must be sustained by the Government in the face of a limited supply of regional airlines, a serious dearth of runway capacity in London for regional airports, and the overwhelming commercial pressure exerted by the buying power of large carriers to force smaller, domestic and regional operators out of London. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to these issues, which are vital if we are to ensure that regional aviation and airports such as Dundee have a viable future.
I am pleased to pay tribute to the staff of Dundee airport, the economic development department of the city council, which manages the council facility, and the major carrier at Dundee airport, ScotAirways, for their vital contribution to the successful establishment and smooth operation of Dundee's vital air link to London. I was heartened by recent press statements confirming ScotAirways' commitment to the vital Dundee transport connection, and hope that one of the outcomes of this debate will be the strengthening of this travel option.
I am not here to promote any commercial or business interest. My only motive in seeking the debate was to ensure the best interests of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West. Mr. Winterton—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The hon. Gentleman may address me as Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I should be honoured if he would do so.
Mr. Luke: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The topic of this debate is critical to the area that I represent. Dundee airport is a focal point for commuters who travel on business and for leisure from an area about 486 miles from the metropolis, which in European terms is on the periphery of Europe. It is part of an economic jigsaw that has been painstakingly put together to ensure the economic well-being and future prosperity of an area that suffered more than most from the recessions that ravaged the United Kingdom during the 1980s and 1990s.
The important economic role of all airports was emphasised by my right hon., Friend the Deputy Prime Minister during a speech in March 2000, when he
128WH
identified airports as being vital to the economy and the key to the Government's integrated transport policy. He said that
"airports are more than just a means of getting from A to B. They are the key to the economic success of our regions and vital to our national economy."
As a Dundee Member, it is important to make the case—as I do at every opportunity—for more government assistance to recreate Dundee's industrial, commercial and service sector base. It is important also to ensure that these different areas of enterprise and employment are supported by a far better transport infrastructure than that in place to allow these activities to achieve the full potential that is open to them.
The airport that serves my area had, like so many others, humble grass-strip beginnings. It was fostered by the local authority for some time for the benefit of the community and now has an anchor of four daily flights from Dundee to London City. The growth of the airport has been fostered by funding from the European regional development fund, and grants previously provided by the then Scottish Office and the Government. We must review the money that has been spent on Dundee airport over the years—about £14 million at 2002 prices—to ensure that the investment begins to pay off.
Considerable progress has been made and, although the estimated 45,000 passengers using the airport this year—last year, it was 47,000—may be few compared with figures for other Scottish airports, it is impressive for the airport's size. Further, when set against the potential passengers travelling between the greater London area and the Dundee airport catchment area, the figure could be in excess of 250,000. There is therefore much to do. Estimated direct peak-time access to London could double the figure of 45,000 over a short period.
To achieve the best returns for the money provided by the Government and the European Union, we need to capitalise on our connections. We must achieve a breakthrough to gain more internal flights in the UK, and greater access to short and medium-haul direct flights to European destinations. Only thus will we ensure the airport's long-term viability. To attain that goal we need the help of the Government, and for them to become more involved,.
As figures show, the service has been performing well and has the potential to be developed, but since 11 September the number of people using the service has dropped. That was confirmed by the chairman of ScotAirways when my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West and I met him in Parliament last month to put the case for the expansion of services from Dundee. He said that now was a period for retrenchment, rather than expansion, and since then ScotAirways has cut proposed flights from Inverness and Aberdeen, and all flights from Glasgow to London City airport. We are consequently lucky to have managed to maintain our London services intact.
I hope to ensure from this debate that once we are over the worst effects of the downturn in air travel since 11 September we will be in a position to begin to build for the future. For Dundee airport, that means certain things, and one is to capture a prime-time slot at peak periods during morning and evening arrivals at London

129WH
City airport. The Government must do all that they can to aid ScotAirways and Dundee airport to achieve that. Much play was made in the regional aviation debate, held on 31 October, of the use of PSOs—public service obligation orders—to gain prime access to London airports. Under EU regulations, only two criteria can be used by the Government to intervene and justify imposing such an order. The first is to secure a route to an airport serving a peripheral or development region if the route is considered vital for the economic development of that region. Although Dundee fits that criteria, because of the different elements that must be matched to gain access to the PSO, I do not believe that it would achieve such status through that route. A second route is one in which the Government can, where they feel it necessary, serve a PSO to maintain a service that would not otherwise exist.
No case has been made for the second criteria for any routes between a regional airport and London. Dundee's circumstances are heavily centred on a PSO being imposed by government to ensure a service at prime time, which would not otherwise exist. If it cannot fit that service, it will fit the next consideration that I shall address. I publicly call for a PSO to be served to secure a prime slot for Dundee airport, given its disadvantaged status.
Once we can increase the number of flights coming to London City airport, we must widen the UK flight options open to travellers from Dundee airport. Gaining access to a regional or London hub airport must be high on a joint development agenda to be created between government, local authorities and Members of Parliament.
Of the estimated 250,000 possible journeys that I mentioned, many will be made to west London via Heathrow. It is assumed that many passengers will want to progress to international destinations not available from other Scottish regional airports. The Minister might remember, or be aware of, the Manchester-Dundee flight, which operated until 1998 and carried about 10,000 passengers annually. It was a very useful connection that could have been developed. Unfortunately, it collapsed, and we wish that we could work with government to recreate that sort of link and to help to promote it.
A third and vital element in the game plan is for Dundee to gain access to short and medium-haul European destinations. Holiday charter flights to Spain and Jersey have operated in the past. Sadly, those no longer run, although they proved popular. Operation costs played against them. Currently, we are trying to gain access to Schipol airport in Amsterdam. For a small airport, that is a difficult agenda to achieve and maintain. That is the final goal that we need to work for, given that very soon Dundee will witness the completion of an international departure lounge, financed by the Government and the European Union. I hope that, working together, we can ensure that this new facility, the vital next stage in the development of Dundee airport, becomes a vibrant and much-used starting point for both business and leisure air travellers going abroad. Anything that the Minister, his Department and its officials can do to help will be extremely useful.
130WH
If the Minister is to repeat the well-publicised whistle-stop tour of regional airports that he conducted last October, will he take time out to travel to Dundee? He will be made very welcome. He will add to our passenger figures, which will also be very welcome, and will see at first hand the progress that we are making in the development of Dundee airport. I think that he will be surprised at the quality of service there, which could be replicated in the City.
I reiterate some of the points made by Dundee city council in its submission last year in response to the "Future of Aviation" consultation paper, which are pertinent to this debate. The council and the departments involved made the case for more direct access at appropriate times to London City airport in order to maximise the current service uptake and to ensure the health of Dundee's business, community and economy. I must stress the influence of the weather—during the storm on Monday, my arduous journey from Dundee to London took well in excess of 14 hours and involved trains, planes and buses. There is no viable surface alternative for business people trying to make vital connections.
Slot availability and slot pricing are hampering the development of our services. With the continued growth in slot demand and free market allocation of London slots, there is a long-term threat to our continued access to London if no Government action is taken. Protection of slots for London locally require a combination of regulations, as I have already said, and a carefully conceived and managed increase in the provision in the capital of runway capacity for regional access. Finally, the representations made by the council underlined the point made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in March 2000. The integrity of the UK economy requires the interests of the regional and national economies to be given priority over the maximisation of profits by airports and large airlines.
When the Minister replies to the debate and when he frames the aviation Bill, which will be introduced later this year, I hope that he will take on board the points raised by me, the city council and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West. I also hope that you will find time in your busy schedule to meet us, officers from Dundee city council and, if possible, the management of Dundee airport, to take the agenda forward, whether in Dundee—you are always welcome to visit us there—or in London.
I am glad that I have had the opportunity of this debate to put the case for the fuller development of Dundee airport.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know that I would be very welcome in Dundee, but I think that the hon. Gentleman was speaking to the Minister. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) has properly and courteously sought the permission of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), the Minister and the occupant of the Chair to participate briefly in the debate, and I am happy to call him.
1.45 pm
Mr. Ernie Ross: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak for a couple of minutes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the

131WH
Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke). When he arrived in the House, he replaced a very active Member of Parliament, who is now a Member of the Scottish Parliament. Since that time, he has displayed not only a determination to stamp his ideas on the House, but an admirable understanding of the problems that face Dundee. That awareness comes from his many years in local authority service and his responsibility for economic development during that period. I have been happy to support him.
I join my hon. Friend in hoping that my hon. Friend the Minister will go on an early jaunt—we shall try to make it a jaunt, although perhaps I should call it a visit—to Dundee. In any event, the Minister will certainly be welcome, and we shall take the opportunity to highlight the necessity and the benefits for Dundee of developing the airport.
Over the past 20 years, I have used every method of transport to get to this building, but the ScotAirways service to London City airport is by far and away the best. I leave my office in Portcullis house—with the Whip's permission, it must be said—at 10 to 3 on Thursday afternoon, and I am sitting having my tea in my front room, 426 miles away, at half-past 5. ScotAirways is to be congratulated on its remarkable service, which has changed my life and those of many people in Dundee.
The airport is also important because we are trying to develop Dundee as a biotechnology centre for Tayside. One can meet professors, academics and business people on the plane, and on one flight up from London City airport there was a woman who was anxious to get to Dundee because her daughter was having a baby in Ninewells hospital. Just as we flew over the hospital and approached Dundee, the pilot was happy to announce that the woman had become a granny. I am sure that she would much rather have been at the hospital, but that is just one example of the type of person that one meets on the flight.
It is important to compliment David Johnson, the airport manager, and his staff on their running of the airport. We are fortunate that ScotAirways has made it the engineering base and the ticket and reservation centre for the whole company, and we appreciate that. Doris and her team also do a marvellous job.
The flight is a pleasant experience, bearing in mind that it is such a small airline. One cabin supervisor, Kathy Milne, who was an experienced flight attendant, drummed the need to pay attention to detail into her successor, Vivian Harper, who drummed it into all the cabin staff. The flight is a really pleasant experience, which I hope that the Minister will soon enjoy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am delighted to ask the Minister to reply to a debate for the second time this morning.
1.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I am delighted to be able to accept your invitation to respond to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
132WH
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on securing this important debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who has been a strong advocate for his local airport and constituents. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East is certainly making his mark as an advocate for the people in his area, and I congratulate him on the calm and sensible way in which he conducted the debate.
My hon. Friend made a strong case for air links to London, and no one could deny that they would help improve the economic fortune of the area. He also made a good case for prime slots into London. He almost suggested that the Government might be able to allocate slots into London, but we have no role in that allocation. Much as we might wish to allocate some favourable slots for the airline from Dundee into one of the major London airports, we cannot do so. In recent months, however, British Airways has relinquished a large number of slots at Gatwick, and other airlines are bidding for them and taking them on. My hon. Friend should encourage his airline to take that option. He will appreciate that it is not within the gift of the Government; the initiative must come from the airline.
My hon. Friend asked about the public service order being placed on the airline. Indeed, he almost declared that it was his wish for the process to be carried out. We often wish things on behalf of our constituents, but the request must be made by the local authority, Dundee city council, or the Scottish Executive. Should such a request be made, it would be considered in the same way as the one made by the Scottish Executive for Inverness airport, which we are considering carefully. The Government are not minded generally to ring-fence slots or protect them because we believe that the marketplace works well. Nevertheless, in some circumstances, we may reconsider that policy.
I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned my well-publicised visit to regional airports. I was in Edinburgh yesterday and visited the fine airport there. I did not go to Dundee, but I would be happy to take what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West called a jaunt. If we rearranged the word slightly, we could call it a junket.
I am intrigued to discover that my hon. Friend leaves this place on Thursday at 10 to 3. I see that the Government Whip has entered the Chamber. Perhaps I can put in an application to get away early on Thursday. I assure my hon. Friend that after 7 pm on a Thursday, there is not much in the way of public transport to Plymouth, let alone an air link. I usually arrive home at between midnight and 1 am.
Mr. Ross: So that I do not get lynched when I leave the Chamber, I should say that it happened only once.
Mr. Jamieson: I am glad that my hon. Friend has put that on the record. From now on, I shall keep a careful note of his voting record on Thursday afternoons.
I recognise the importance of good regional air links between Dundee and London. They provide spin-offs not only for the local economy but for the social life of the city. I appreciate that certain regions of the United Kingdom are worried that their slots are being threatened by commercial pressures and because of

133WH
pressure on airport capacity, although in recent months that pressure has been somewhat reduced, particularly at Gatwick. Airport slots at London airports are allocated by the slot allocator, Airport Coordination Ltd. ACL allocates slots on a neutral, transparent and non-discriminatory basis, and its decisions are binding. The Government have no role in that process.
The allocation of airport slots derives from a combination of European and international air transport guidelines. As my hon. Friend said, Dundee services use London City airport, which is a coordinated airport, and uses the International Air Transport Association guidelines for slot allocation. It is also a prior permission airport and is constrained by the number of airport stands that it has. However, I am sure that my hon. Friends will be encouraged, as I am, by the fact that there are currently four daily services between Dundee and London City, with some flights, at least, at peak times of the day. I was also delighted to be informed that a fifth service will start in February. At London City airport, airlines are offered permission to land if they flew the relevant service in the previous season. Dundee should, if the market exists and the airline wants to continue flying that route, retain the access.
Mr. Luke: I am glad to hear that announcement. Does my hon. Friend agree that it gives an added advantage? If he has the opportunity to come to Dundee, there is an extra flight available.
Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend has been extremely persuasive, and on my next tour of regional airports I shall be giving the strongest consideration to the idea of going to Dundee, where I shall, I am sure, be given a fine reception by my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dundee, West—if they can get off the Whip.
I want to say more about the protection of slots, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East rightly stressed. My Department is currently undertaking a policy review on options available for the protection of London airport slots for regional air services. We are examining the current mechanisms by which the Government could intervene to protect access for regional air services. Those, as my hon. Friend knows, will include ring fencing slots under European Regulation 95/93 and imposing a public service obligation under European regulation 2408/92. Those and a range of other options are being considered, and the review is now well under way. The work will subsequently feed into the preparation for the aviation White Paper that we expect towards the end of the year.
My hon. Friend pointed out that Dundee airport is linked to the prospects of airports in the south-east. The Government recognise that some major airports are close to the limits of their capacity. United Kingdom
134WH
airports now handle more than double the number of passengers that they accommodated in 1985 when the previous national airports policy statement was published. The continually growing demand for both business and leisure air travel is increasing pressure on capacity at airports.
Nowhere is that pressure more evident than in the south-east of England. Three of the United Kingdom's four busiest airports are located in the region. All the major south-east airports are struggling to cope with the demands on their capacity. The Government are tackling the issue and we plan later in the year to publish an air transport White Paper to lay down the framework for the sustainable development of United Kingdom airports over the next 30 years.
There are three main building blocks to the preparation of the White Paper. This is probably important for my hon. Friend's constituency interests. First, we published in December 1999 a consultation document on the future of aviation. The other two building blocks are the two further consultation documents, one on the options for development at regional airports and the other about an option for airports in south-east England. We plan to issue those consultation documents in the spring.
As to airports in the south-east in particular, the south-east and east of England regional air services study has examined a wide range of options at existing airports and new sites. I am pleased to say that that study has now been completed. I am sure that when it is published it will be of considerable interest to the constituents of my hon. Friend and others with an interest in the matter.
As my hon. Friend will know, the 1998 White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" announced that the Government would prepare a statement of policy on airports, looking 30 years ahead. That paper made it clear that we need to make the best use of our regional airports, indicating our objective that they should meet local demand for air travel where that is consistent with sustainable development principles. We want to maximise their contribution to local and regional economies, relieve pressure on the congested London airports and reduce the need for long surface journeys to airports in the south-east. We are taking those policies forward through the regional airports and air services programme. If my hon. Friend carefully examines those studies, he will see that value can certainly be derived from them for his constituents.
This has been a valuable debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East on raising it and giving me, on behalf of the Government, an opportunity to answer some of his points. If there are any I have not answered, I should be delighted to write to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sustainable Development Summit
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the agenda for the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg in September. [29129]

  Clare Short
  The UK Government are working to try to ensure that the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg in September commits the international community to work for the systematic reduction of poverty in a sustainable planet. It is only on this basis that the world community will be able to agree on the need to manage the resources of the world sustainably. My own hope is that the summit will bring the development and environment agendas together and thus strengthen the international commitment to poverty eradication.

  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the United Kingdom's involvement in the preparation for the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg in September. [29133]

  Clare Short
  The UK is fully engaged in preparations for the world summit. The Prime Minister was the first world leader to announce his intention to attend. A Cabinet Committee has been established, under the chairmanship of the Deputy Prime Minister, to co-ordinate the Government's approach. We are working hard—within the EU and internationally—to ensure a successful outcome at Johannesburg.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department provides to the Government of Nigeria in helping it to tackle AIDS. [29130]

  Clare Short
  Nigeria has an infection rate for HIV of 5.8 per cent. in the sexually active population. This is the level at which we normally see an exponential increase in infection rates. In some parts of Nigeria the rate is already 20 per cent. Given that one in four of the population of sub-Saharan Africa live in Nigeria, this situation poses a major threat. I recently approved a £50 million seven-year programme that supports behaviour change and distributes condoms using social marketing, targeting vulnerable and high-risks groups. We intend to do more.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is giving to Botswana and Namibia to tackle the AIDS epidemic. [29148]
  306W
  Clare Short
  We are supporting a £7.5 million regional HIV/AIDS programme with the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The programme aims to develop capacity in Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland to mount an effective response to the HIV epidemic. DFID is also financing Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO), and Soul City, a regional non-government organisation, for HIV/AIDS work in the region.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many projects are being funded by Her Majesty's Government in Zimbabwe; and what their costs are. [29131]

  Clare Short
  In Zimbabwe we are spending £18 million this year on 18 programmes, mostly aimed at providing food and medicines and slowing the spread of HIV and AIDS. Our aim is not to assist the Government, but to help the poor.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her response to food shortages in Zimbabwe. [29151]

  Clare Short
  DFID has provided £4 million since September 2001 for a supplementary feeding programme implemented by NGOs, targeting 300,000 people (predominantly children) in the worst hit areas of Zimbabwe. At the beginning of January we announced a contribution of £6 million for the UNDP's Humanitarian Assistance and Recovery Programme; £3.5 million for further feeding programmes and £2.5 million for essential medical supplies and improved access to health care services.

  Education Investment
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her priorities are for education investment in the poorest countries. [29132]

  Clare Short
  Our priority in education is to achieve the millennium development goals of universal primary education in all countries by the year 2015 and gender equity in primary and secondary schooling by 2005. Since May 1997 we have committed over £600 million in support of them. Our recent paper "Children out of School" proposes an eight-point plan of international action for accelerating progress towards the 2015 target.

  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what importance she places on the role of education in the context of Government assistance to developing nations. [29137]

  Clare Short
  We give very high priority to education because education is a precondition of development and poverty reduction. We want other development agencies to do likewise. DFID's focus is on ensuring that we achieve the target of quality primary education for all children by 2015. Our education strategy paper, "The challenge of universal primary education", sets out DFID's overall approach and threefold strategy for delivering this goal.
  307W

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to combat child poverty in developing countries. [29134]

  Clare Short
  We seek to reduce the poverty of children, which causes suffering to today's children and jeopardises the well-being of future generations, by working to address the causes of deprivation in their communities. Support for children's rights to basic health care, education, nutrition, shelter, protection from violence and abusive labour, along with sustainable livelihoods for their parents, is central to my Department's work towards the millennium development goals.

  We are determined to do our utmost to energise the international system to achieve the goals. The goals include the target of, by 2015, lifting one billion people out of abject poverty, universal primary schooling, and reducing under-five child mortality by two thirds. The goals are achievable given greater and more united international effort.

  Agriculture Funding (Uganda)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding is planned for agricultural developments in Uganda in the financial year 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [29135]

  Clare Short
  My Department plans to spend approximately £3.35 million on rural livelihoods projects in Uganda in the financial year 2002–03. In addition, DFID intends to provide £35 million of general budget support to the Government of Uganda, which will be used to support Government programmes, including an innovative strategy for rural poverty eradication, known as the plan for the modernisation of agriculture (PMA). This incorporates reforms to key strategies that determine livelihood opportunities for the rural poor, including extension, research, lands and marketing.

  Kenya
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on development aid to Kenya. [29136]

  Clare Short
  The aim of British development assistance to Kenya is to reduce poverty. Direct assistance in 2000–01 totalled £52 million, including £15 million as budget support and £12 million on drought relief. We also support the provision of primary school textbooks and materials, HIV/AIDS prevention and care, reproductive health care, malaria prevention, private sector development, public service reform and initiatives to promote civic education and improved access to justice for poor people. In addition, Britain contributed substantially through multilateral agencies including about £2.7 million through the EC's aid programme.

  Air Navigation Contract (Tanzania)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the developmental impact of the air navigation contract with Tanzania. [29138]
  308W
  Clare Short
  There is general agreement that Tanzania needs a civilian air traffic control system to ensure safety in the country's air space. The issue is whether the contract with British Aerospace meets Tanzania's needs, and represents value for money.

  The Government of Tanzania are working with the World bank and the International Civil Aviation Organisation to address these issues. The developmental impact will depend on whether the system is technically appropriate and affordable within the Government of Tanzania's budget, which is being targeted on priorities set out in its poverty reduction strategy.

  Fair Trade
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to promote fairer terms of trade for developing countries. [29139]

  Clare Short
  The Government believe that trade has a vital role to play in helping developing countries to boost their economic growth and generate the resources necessary for reducing poverty. We have made important steps towards achieving these objectives, not least of which was the development agenda agreed at the Doha Ministerial Conference. This is, however, only the beginning of negotiations. To make it a real development round we will work to ensure that these commitments become a reality. We are therefore working with the Department for Trade and Industry, the European Union, the WTO and developing countries to assist them in forming clear and pro-development negotiating positions.

  The UK Government are also at the forefront of efforts to enhance developing countries' capacity to trade. In the White Paper on Globalisation we undertook to double our commitment over the next three years. We have recently pledged a £20 million package of trade related capacity building which will take us towards this goal.

  St. Helena
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in improving transport facilities for St. Helena. [29140]

  Clare Short
  A "Comparative Study of Air and Sea Access" was published last July. A copy of the report was placed in the House of Commons Library. It identified various options, which have since been under consideration by the St. Helena Government. As part of that process, the views of the islanders are being sought on the possibility of developing air access in future as an alternative to replacing St. Helena's dedicated passenger and supply ship.

  Pakistan
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department is taking to promote peace and reduce poverty in Pakistan. [29141]

  Clare Short
  The UK's bilateral programme in Pakistan is focused on three objectives: creating the economic conditions for poverty reduction and improving health and education outcomes for poor people, improving
  309W
  the accountability of the political system and giving the poor a more effective political voice. We are also working to help entrench effective, inclusive and sustainable democracy in Pakistan.

  Children (Armed Conflict)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what further steps have been taken to ratify the optional protocol to the convention on the rights of children on the involvement of children in armed conflict; and if she will make a statement. [29142]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Ministry of Defence has been preparing detailed administrative procedures and guidelines for the UK armed forces which will give concrete form to the commitment, and accompanying declaration, we made on signing the optional protocol to ensure that all feasible measures are taken to avoid the direct participation in hostilities by any of our serving personnel who are under the age of 18. This process is in its final stages and we hope to proceed to ratification soon. Details of the means of implementing the protocol will be covered in an explanatory memorandum to be laid before Parliament in the lead up to ratification. Meanwhile great care continues to be taken in selecting the types of duty on which personnel under the age of 18 may be employed, and I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 28 January 2002, Official Report, column 14W to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green).

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about her Department's development work in southern Africa. [29143]

  Clare Short
  A new strategy paper will be published this year for DF1D's work in the Southern Africa Customs Union area, which comprises Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland. DFID will continue to support the region's efforts to address inherited problems of poverty, inequality and exclusion. We will give increasing priority to work on HIV/AIDS.

  Within the broader Southern African region, DFID also supports programmes in Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe. DFID is also working to strengthen its partnership with the Southern African Development Community (SADC), following its recent restructuring.

  Afghanistan
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. [29144]

  Clare Short
  Thanks to the efforts of the UN-led humanitarian system, and with the support of the international community, a potential humanitarian catastrophe has been averted in Afghanistan. But at least five million people will remain dependent on food aid and other emergency support over the coming year. Unless there is significant rainfall in the next few weeks, a fourth 310W
  consecutive year of drought looks likely. Large numbers of Afghans are beginning to return from neighbouring countries, including around 10,000 people from Iran in the last few weeks, and approximately 3,000 a day from Pakistan.

  While it is vital that we prepare for longer-term development in Afghanistan, we must also continue to provide urgent humanitarian assistance, particularly over the remaining winter months. The UN has launched an Immediate and Transitional Assistance Programme (ITAP) for the Afghan people in 2002. This paper identifies a package of unmet humanitarian needs and calls for $736 million of donor support this year to help cover gaps in emergency provision.

  At the Tokyo conference on Afghan reconstruction earlier this week, I announced a UK commitment of £200 million ($288 million) over the next five years. These funds will be used for both reconstruction and humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the outcome of the Tokyo conference on reconstruction and development in Afghanistan. [29150]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to my statement to the House on 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 21–36.

  Sudan
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of Sudan's prospects for peace and long-term development. [29145]

  Clare Short
  I visited Sudan recently to assess the prospects for peace and development. In my discussions with Sudanese leaders and others in the north and south of the country, I found that both sides in the conflict were yearning for peace. I concluded that there is now a real window of opportunity for the UK and the rest of the international community to engage in dialogue to help Sudan bring this long running conflict to an end.

  I believe the UK can play a significant role in helping resolve the conflict and that our involvement would be welcomed by both sides. My Department is now considering ways in which the UK can exert influence in the peace process. We will aim to raise and maintain the conflict's profile in the international arena, and to build the pressure for a just peace. This will involve discussing Sudan with the World bank, IMF and the EU as well as with African countries with the potential to help. It will also be important to maintain the continued interest and involvement from the US and we will work with them at official and ministerial level to ensure this.

  Long-term development of Sudan cannot be achieved without an end to the war. Such a partnership would depend on an end to the conflict, sustainable peace and political stability, as well as a commitment on the part of the Sudanese Government to poverty eradication.
  311W

  Illiteracy
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to combat illiteracy in developing countries. [29146]

  Clare Short
  DFID' s major focus for tackling illiteracy is helping developing countries achieve the millennium development goal of universal primary education for all by 2015. Increasing access to good quality primary education and ensuring that children are literate when they leave school is essential for development and poverty reduction. Since 1997 the Government have committed over £600 million to support sustainable education systems in developing countries able to provide high quality primary education for all children.

  We will do more. We will also give increasing attention to helping developing countries tackle adult illiteracy.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the United Kingdom Government's quick-start demobilisation programme in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [29147]

  Clare Short
  During my visit to DRC in August last year, I pledged the UK's support for the disarmament. demobilisation and reintegration of ex-combatants. The DRC Government have not yet taken up this offer of assistance. They have, however, assembled 1,800 soldiers in the Kamina cantonment and we are working with the Congolese and Rwandan Governments to try to ensure that they are properly screened and, if appropriate, returned to Rwanda. We stand ready to provide any useful support we can to the process. We are also providing direct assistance to MONUC to enable peacekeeping forces to deploy in the east of DRC.

  Education (India)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to assist the Indian Government to provide education for the children of low-income families. [29149]

  Clare Short
  We have committed about £200 million to expanding and improving primary education in India through the District Primary Education Programme in Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal, through the Lok Jumbish and Shiksha Karmi programmes in Rajasthan, and for post-cyclone reconstruction of schools in Orissa.

  The programmes specifically target poor children, especially girls and disadvantaged groups, such as the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and working and disabled children. These are highly successful programmes that are having a significant impact on enrolment, retention and quality, reaching increasing numbers of out-of-school children and involving high levels of community participation.

  We are currently discussing with the Government of India how we can further support their efforts to universalise education up to the age of 14, in the light of their 'Elementary Education as a Fundamental Right' Bill and recent Constitutional Amendment on the same subject.
  312W

  Debt Relief
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress the Government are making on relieving debt owed by the world's poorest countries. [29152]

  Clare Short
  Following a radical overhaul of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative in 1999, to ensure faster, deeper debt relief, up to $100 billion debt could be written off for the 42 HIPC countries. To date, 24 countries have qualified for this exceptional debt relief. Relief of more than $54 billion will be provided to these countries, reducing their debts by more than two-thirds on average. We hope that at least two more countries—Ghana and Sierra Leone—will qualify for debt relief in the coming months, but substantial further progress will be difficult, as many of the remaining HIPC countries are affected by conflict.

  The Government have already written off their aid debts to all the poorest countries. The UK is also the second largest contributor ($306 million) to the HIPC Trust Fund to help international financial institutions meet their share of HIPC costs.

  Western Sahara Refugees
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support she provides for refugees from the Western Sahara in Algeria. [29153]

  Clare Short
  Support for refugees from the Western Sahara in Algeria is mostly channelled through three agencies: the United Nation's High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR); the World Food Programme (WFP); and the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO). UNHCR' s budget for the refugees from Western Sahara amounted to about US$3.3 million in 2001. The WFP aims to provide 64,500 tons of food (costing US$27.5 million) in its 2000–02 programme. ECHO's Global Plan 2001 began last September and aims to provide Euro 11.8 million in humanitarian support to the refugees, of which approximately 15 per cent. is attributable to contributions from the UK. Smaller amounts of financial and food aid assistance are provided by other EU member states.

  Aid (Africa)
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was provided by the Government in(a) development and (b) humanitarian aid to (i) Burundi, (ii) Angola, (iii) Uganda, (iv) Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, (v) Zimbabwe, and (vi) Zambia in the financial year 1996–97; and what the projected figures are in each case for the 2001–02 financial year. [30369]

  Clare Short
  Historical expenditure figures broken down by aid type for each of the countries listed, for the five financial years 1996–97 to 2000–01, are published in "Statistics on International Development" (SID), Table 7.1 Bilateral Aid by Country (Africa). Beginning on page 77, the relevant column to read is Total Gross Public Expenditure (GPEX). A coy of this publication is in the Library of the House.
  313W
  In the current financial year the following amounts have been allocated to each country for both development and humanitarian assistance (including in some cases peace related activities):

  £ million

  Development

  Humanitarian assistance

  Total

  Angola

  2.5

  1.27

  3.77

  Burundi

  0.05

  0

  0.05

  Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

  0.1

  10.4

  10.5

  Rwanda

  30.0

  0

  30.0

  Uganda

  68.0

  0

  68.0

  Zambia

  56.0

  1.0

  57.0

  Zimbabwe

  8.0

  10.0

  18.0

  Note that these figures are incomplete estimates as provisional expenditure data will not be available until after the end of the financial year once information on spending by other UK Government Departments has been collected. Countries where final expenditure figures are likely to increase are Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia as they currently receive CDC investments and debt relief.

  Inter-Congolese Dialogue
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if her Department will provide assistance to South Africa to help further the inter-Congolese dialogue this year. [30400]

  Clare Short
  Financial support for the inter-Congolese dialogue is channelled through the Office of the Facilitator. The UK has so far made the third largest contribution of all donors to the dialogue. We are in close touch with the Office of the Facilitator about future financial requirements. We are also in close touch with the Government of South Africa, who have offered to meet the main costs of hosting the next session of the dialogue.

  Generic Drug Use
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement regarding the promotion of generic drug use in developing nations. [31277]

  Clare Short
  Generic drugs play a key role in addressing the disease burden of developing countries: at present 95 per cent. of drugs on the World Health Organisation's essential drug list (including almost all treatments for TB and malaria) are off patent and available generically.

  But patent protection—as set out in the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS)—remains important for new medicines as an incentive for future research. We support the TRIPS agreement, and the recent declaration at the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in Doha, which made clear that the agreement should be interpreted and implemented in such a way as to protect public health and promote access to medicines for all.

  We are promoting the appropriate use of both generic and patented drugs in developing countries. We will shortly be disbursing the first instalment of our
  314W
  $200 million contribution to the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, to finance increased coverage of tried and tested interventions for the three diseases. Since 1997 we have committed over £1 billion to strengthen developing countries' health systems, in order that more drugs reach the poor who need them.

PRIME MINISTER

  Forward Strategy Unit
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, columns 723–24W, Ref. 29065, for what reason the budgets of the (a) Forward Strategy Unit and (b) Delivery Unit have not yet been set; what working assumption has been applied to the budget provision; and on what date an announcement will be made. [30460]

  The Prime Minister
  Allocations to the new units within the Cabinet Office will be made in the usual way. They will be fully accounted for as with any other unit in the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office publishes an annual account. Budgets are not broken down by management unit.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the projects under consideration by the Forward Strategy Unit. [30458]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 104W.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) special advisers and (b) civil servants were employed in (i) the Forward Strategy Unit and (ii) the Delivery Unit on 1 January. [30459]

  The Prime Minister
  At 1 January 2002, eight full-time and three part-time civil servants based in the Cabinet Office were working in the Forward Strategy Unit, and no special advisers.

  Civil servants from other Departments assist the FSU with its work as required.

  17 full-time and three part-time civil servants were employed in the Delivery Unit, and no special advisers, on that date.

  Lord Birt
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, columns 723–24W, on Lord Birt, for what reason he is not able to answer the questions relating to the role of Lord Birt, Refs. 29190, 29185, 29315, 29184, 29191, 29187, 29182, 29186, 29183, 29194 and 29188. [30667]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my previous answer.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister if all papers under his control relating to the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak are being made available to Dr. lain Anderson as part of his inquiry into lessons learned from the foot and mouth outbreak. [31396]
  315W
  The Prime Minister
  The Government are committed to full co-operation with the inquiry.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he(a) has given and (b) will be giving (i) oral and (ii) written evidence to Dr. Iain Anderson's Lessons Learned Inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak. [31397]

  The Prime Minister
  I am giving full co-operation to Dr. Anderson in this important inquiry and had an initial meeting with him on 22 January.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) on what recent dates the financial situation of NATS has been discussed by Cabinet Ministers; [31607]

  (2) what discussions there have been by Cabinet Ministers on the CAA's representations relating to the ability of the Airlines Group business plan for NATS to withstand a major incident; and on what dates. [31608]

  The Prime Minister
  Information relating to the proceeding of Cabinet and internal discussions between Ministers is not disclosed under Exemption 2, Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether he received a copy of the CAA representations on the ability of the Airlines Group business plan for NATS to withstand a major incident; [31651]

  (2) what advice he received from the CAA on representations it has made on the ability of the Airlines Group business plan for NATS to withstand a major incident. [31652]

  The Prime Minister
  The terms of the public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services were accepted by all the parties involved, including the Civil Aviation Authority. It would not be appropriate to discuss the detail of discussions which led up to the conclusion of this commercial deal.

  Hospitality
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the people who received official hospitality at No. 10 Downing street in 2001. [31606]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not my practice to give details of every visitor to 10 Downing street. In 2001, around 4,300 visitors received hospitality.

  The programme of events is designed to give people the opportunity to visit No. 10, including for example regular children's tea parties and receptions for a wide-ranging cross section of the community. In 2001 these included receptions for teachers, NHS workers, the police, members of the emergency services and victims of the floods.

  I also provided hospitality to visiting world political leaders, and a wide range of other organisations and individuals.

  No. 10 has also been used for a large number of charity receptions which were funded by the charities involved, who were also responsible for drawing up the guest lists.
  316W
  In addition, I hosted a number of political events funded by the Labour party.

  Whittington Hospital
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister what information his officials(a) sought and (b) received from the Whittington hospital on the case of (i) Mrs. Rose Addis, (ii) James Scott-Faulkner, (iii) Mr. Sidney Hockley and (iv) Mr. Tom Grangevision; and if he will publish the verbatim text of briefings offered by his officials to the press on these cases. [31599]

  The Prime Minister
  My officials obtained copies of the press statements made by the trust after they were published which in themselves were in accordance with the guidance, "The Protection and Use of Patient Information", issued by the Department of Health. All Lobby briefings by my official spokesman are on-the-record. An account of them is published on the No. 10 website.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date he told Schroder Salomon Smith Barney that the Chairman of Railtrack had requested further financial support, as indicated in the letter from SSSB to his Department, dated 7 October. [26291]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department first contacted Schroder Salomon Smith Barney on 6 August 2001 to ask for advice in assessing Railtrack's request for additional financial support.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) whether Schroder Salomon Smith Barney advised him that Railtrack was insolvent; [26408]

  (2) what advice he received from Schroder Salomon Smith Barney relating to factors other than Government support which would have prevented Railtrack from raising the additional debt finance assumed in its business plan. [26407]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 495W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether a company limited by guarantee has been established to bid for Railtrack plc. [30241]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A team to develop a bid based on the concept of a company limited by guarantee has been established and its bid costs are being met by the Strategic Rail Authority. A company limited by guarantee has not yet been established.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps are being taken to establish a value of Railtrack shares to allow individual shareholders to complete their financial affairs at the end of the tax year. [30809]
  317W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: The administrator will be seeking to obtain the best value that he can for the assets of Railtrack plc. Shareholders will receive the value to which they are properly entitled.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 861W, on Railtrack, for what specific purposes the additional public funding of £4.5 billion announced with the SRA strategic plan was allocated. [31540]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The additional £4.5 billion relates to (i) the October 2000 final conclusions of the Rail Regulator's periodic review of access charges, (ii) the April 2001 agreement between Government and Railtrack, and (iii) provision for further project development work.

  Rail Fares
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has been the percentage increase in unregulated rail fares(a) in the UK, (b) within the South Central franchise and (c) within the Thameslink franchise for each year from 1997; and what has been the largest individual price increase for a journey within the above categories for the same period. [27523]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 January 2002]: The information required is not held centrally. Unregulated fares are a matter for individual train operating companies who set the level of these according to their own commercial criteria.

  Commuter Routes (London)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made on how Thameslink 2000, South London Metro and the East London line would use common corridors; and whether this can be achieved in a way consistent with the Strategic Rail Authority's goal of reducing the number of operators on key commuter routes in London. [28566]

  Mr. Spellar
  The integrated planning of the southern timetable is being carried out by Railtrack for GoVia, with active involvement from the SRA. The work is focused on maximising the use of the network for all relevant operators.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which investment commitments in the SRA plan have not been announced previously by the SRA or the Government. [28541]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA Strategic Plan sets out, for the first time in nearly 50 years, a plan to lead to the expansion of Britain's railways. It sets out a series of prioritised measures to improve the rail network and ensure the 10-year plan rail targets are met. Many of the individual projects covered in the plan have been previously identified, including in the strategic agenda of 13 March 2001.
  318W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 711W, on the Strategic Rail Authority, what proportion of the network will require ERTMS; and if he will list the lines concerned. [31564]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The plan for the deployment of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), incorporating an Automatic Train Protection (ATP) function, on the UK rail network is at present being prepared by a pan-industry team under the direction of the Strategic Rail Authority and Rail Safety Ltd. It is a complex undertaking as there are various levels of ERTMS at present under trial throughout Europe (including a major trial on West Coast Main Line) and the optimum infrastructure and rolling stock approach for the varied UK routes has to be found.

  The work of the pan-industry team is progressing very well and it is anticipated that an industry plan defining the recommended extent of ERTMS fitment together with a major route by route strategy and timescale will be available in April. A key input into the team's work has been the recommended priorities and objective defined in the Uff Cullen report, which will, to the extent feasible, be reflected in the plan.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the commitments in the SRA Strategic Plan which are contingent on(a) the completion of franchise negotiations which are running behind schedule and (b) the establishment of special purpose vehicles. [30261]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer to my answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, columns 601–02W. The Strategic Plan assumes that most large priority infrastructure projects will involve at least some funding through special purpose vehicles whose details and extent will be a matter for commercial negotiation in due course.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the cost of the proposed South West Trains upgrade outlined in the SRA Strategic Plan is projected to be raised from the private sector; and what total amount that represents. [30250]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Costs of individual elements of the proposed new South West Trains franchise are a matter for the SRA's current commercial negotiations on she franchise.

  Railways
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if it is his policy to close rural or under-used passenger rail services or lines to create additional capacity on major routes. [28553]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have no such policy.

  Channel Tunnel Freight Services
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps are being taken to ensure normal freight services are resumed through the channel tunnel. [30759]
  319W
  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been many contacts between the British and French Governments since November.

  The removal of the restrictions is dependent on the implementation of additional security measures at the Calais Fréthun yard so that SNCF can deal effectively with potential illegal immigrants.

  The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Home Secretary have all written to their French counterparts to ask that all necessary measures be put in place as soon as possible, to enable full rail freight services to resume.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last discussed with the French Government the SNCF restriction of channel tunnel rail freight services; and when he expects the restrictions to be removed. [28663]

  Mr. Spellar
  I discussed this issue with Monsieur Gayssot, the French Transport Minister, during the last Transport Council meeting in December. Since then, the Secretary of State has written personally to M. Gayssot and there have been a number of other contacts between our Governments.

  The removal of the restrictions is dependent on the implementation of additional security measures at the Calais Fréthun yard so that SNCF can deal effectively with potential illegal immigrants. Work on strengthened fencing is now under way and, we are told, due to be completed by mid-February. The Prime Minister has written to M. Jospin asking him to do all he can to ensure the necessary physical security measures and police presence are put in place as soon as possible, to enable the resumption of a full rail freight service through the tunnel.

  Work Force Injuries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people in(a) the UK and (b) Buckinghamshire left the work force following injury or illness caused at work, in each year since 1997. [30052]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The regular statistical sources do not provide a basis for reliable estimates of the data requested. However, the HSE publication "The costs to Britain of workplace accidents and ill health in 1995–96" (the most recent such data available) estimates that in Great Britain approximately 27,000 people1were forced to give up work in 1995 as a result of injury or illness caused by work.
  1It should be noted that this is a statistically imprecise estimate, based on aggregating two different sources, and the statistical 95 per cent. confidence interval around this estimate runs from 16,000 to 42,000.

  Train Drivers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps were taken by the Government(a) prior to 1 May 1997, (b) between 1 May 1997 and 24 February 1999 and (c) since 25 February 1999 to ensure adequate numbers of trained train drivers within the railway industry; and if he will make a statement. [29981]
  320W
  Mr. Jamieson
  When franchises were originally let in 1996 the purpose of the Government at the time was to give train operators full discretion and responsibility for providing resources, including drivers, to meet their obligations. In November 1998 the Government held a meeting with Railtrack and the train operating companies to discuss the poor performance of the industry and to agree a plan to deliver solutions. Part of that plan included the recruitment and training of 800 new drivers. The SRA is currently encouraging train operators to recruit sufficient drivers to meet their service obligations. In some cases the extension or replacement of franchise agreements will enable the SRA to contractualise measures to ensure adequate numbers.

  London Underground
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who he intends shall be liable for maintaining disused underground tunnels under PPP. [30227]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All parts of the London underground infrastructure have been allocated to one of the three infrastructure companies that were established as subsidiaries of London Underground in April 2000. Under the PPP, the infrastructure companies will transfer to the private sector. They will continue to be responsible for maintaining and modernising the infrastructure in accordance with detailed contractual obligations. These obligations include a requirement to maintain disused underground tunnels in a safe and secure condition, and in a manner which prevents deterioration.

  Sunday Bus Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many bus services were running on Sundays in each year between 1990 and 2000. [30935]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many road traffic accidents took place on Sundays in each year between 1990 and 2000. [30934]

  Mr. Spellar
  The numbers of injury road accidents which took place on Sundays are as shown. No information is available regarding the numbers of damage only accidents.

  Injury road accidents an Sundays: Great Britain

  Number

  1990

  29,592

  1991

  25,949

  1992

  26,121

  1993

  23,925

  1994

  24,539

  1995

  25,606

  1996

  26,025

  1997

  26,058

  1998

  25,945

  1999

  25,678

  2000

  25,941

  321W
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the percentage of drivers of company vehicles who have had an accident in the last three years. [30739]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No estimate is available for the percentage of company vehicle drivers who have had an accident in the last three years.

  However, recent research shows that fleet car drivers have a higher probability of involvement in accidents than other drivers. This confirms the results of other research studies. It has also been estimated that between a quarter and a third of road accidents involved someone who was working at the time.

  Council Staff (Sunday Working)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many local council employees were required to work on Sundays in each year between 1990 and 2000. [30936]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  High Hedges
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress is being made on preparing for control of high hedges. [30317]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: The Government will introduce legislation giving local authorities the power to deal with complaints about high hedges as soon as there is space in the parliamentary timetable. We supported the Private Member's Bill on this issue introduced by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) in the last session of Parliament and were disappointed that the Bill failed to complete all its stages before the election.

  Guidelines commissioned by my Department, which provide an objective method for assessing whether high hedges block out too much light to adjoining properties, were published on our website in December. These guidelines are likely to be a factor for local authorities to take into account when determining complaints under a future statutory scheme. In the meantime, we want to encourage people to apply the guidelines and use the results to settle disputes with their neighbours amicably. We are preparing a leaflet specifically designed for this purpose, which we expect to launch in the spring.

  Gatwick Airport
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the level of slot demand as a proportion of supply at Gatwick airport for summer 2002; and if he will make a statement on actual supply and demand for slots in(a) 2001, (b) 2000, (c) 1999, (d) 1998 and (e) 1997. [31286]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: For summer 2001, the demand for slots at Gatwick was 206,419 and 174,484 slots were allocated. For summer 2002, the demand for slots rose to 231,211 with 177,657 slots being allocated. However, the increase in demand
  322W
  was due to a number of opportunistic bids for slots following the events of 11 September. I will write to my hon. Friend in due course to make a statement on supply and demand for slots in 1997–2001.

  Lord Birt
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 24 January 2002, refs 29312, 29314 and 29316,Official Report, column 1054W for what reasons he is not able to answer the questions relating to the work of Lord Birt. [30562]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The answers to these questions are set out in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22 January 2002,Official Report, columns 723–24W, to which I have already referred the hon. Member.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of(a) large and (b) small NDPBs are subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission. [30472]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The audit arrangements for all executive non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are listed in the annual publication "Public Bodies". No audit details are provided for the other types of NDPB as their spend is usually negligible. In the majority of cases the National Audit Office (i.e. the Comptroller and Auditor General) is the external auditor. However, some executive NDPBs employ commercial auditors and, in such cases, the NAO has been granted inspection rights.

  The Audit Commission rarely audits NDPB accounts. It does not keep records to enable it to identify separately any NDPB audits. The Audit Commission has only gained responsibility for auditing NDPB accounts when there has been a round of local government reorganisation and where some residuary or stand-alone bodies have been created by statute, which are treated by their founding legislation as local authorities, for the purposes of the Audit Commission Act 1998.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers local authorities have to influence the spending and policy of NDPBs that have branches at local level. [30462]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Local government has no statutory powers to influence the spending and policy of NDPB's that have branches at local level. Various powers exist which enable innovation and closer working between local authorities and their partners, including the discretionary power in the Local Government Act 2000 to do anything they consider likely to promote the economic, social and environmental well being of their area.

  Tyne and Wear Metro
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 866W, on Tyne and Wear metro, what requirements imposed by the Health and Safety Executive have made this common usage possible. [31543]
  323W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The new extension of the Tyne and Wear metro runs, in part, along existing mainline network. Therefore, HSE has required all of the signals on the metro extension to be fitted with an automatic train protection system (Train Protection and Warning System) similar to those fitted to the rest of this stretch of the mainline network. This is to ensure that all trains that pass a signal at danger are automatically brought to a halt.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what discussions he has had with the Treasury on the CAA representation on the ability of the Airlines Group business plan for NATS to withstand a major incident; [31645]

  (2) what advice he received from the Civil Aviation
  Authority on the ability of the Airlines Group's business plan for NATS to withstand a major incident; [31648]

  (3) if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the CAA's submission about the ability of the Airlines Group Business Plan for NATS to withstand a major incident. [31653]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The terms of the public-private partnership for NATS were accepted by all the parties involved, including the Civil Aviation Authority. It would not be appropriate to disclose the detail of discussions prior to conclusion of this commercial deal.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has prepared a contingency plan for NATS going into administration or receivership. [31655]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such plan has been prepared.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when(a) he and (b) his officials last met NATS to discuss its financial situation. [31656]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers and officials maintain regular contact with NATS.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received, other than from that of the CAA, about the ability of NATS to withstand a major incident. [31654]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such representations have been received.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from banks backing NATS seeking additional public financial support for the business. [31644]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The banks backing NATS are in regular discussion with the Government and all other relevant parties regarding the company's financial situation.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last met NATS' bankers to discuss its financial situation. [31643]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such meetings have been held.
  324W

  Central Trains
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what commitment Central Trains has made to introduce new rolling stock during the period of its two year franchise extension. [31537]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is considering the possibility of a two year extension to the current Central Trains franchise aimed at achieving an early increase in capacity but no commitments have been made by either party.

  Rail Interoperability
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether his Department has held discussions with its counterpart in the Irish Republic about rail interoperability on the routes that link ports with access to the Republic and the Channel Tunnel. [31386]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department and the Strategic Rail Authority are in regular contact with counterparts in the Irish Republic on a range of issues, but this has not included the specific issue of projects to adapt such routes to european interoperability specifications.

  Rail Freight
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 865W, on freight facilities, what additional funds are being made available for rail freight. [31538]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 10-year plan provides £3.5 billion of funding for rail freight over 10 years, to provide capital investment and revenue support.

  East London Line
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 866W, on the East London line, if the references to the East London line in the SRA Strategic Plan apply only to the extension to Dalston Junction. [31541]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The references in the SRA Strategic Plan are to the full East London line extension project, including both northern and southern extensions.

  Bus Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the financial allocation by his Department is to support bus services in(a) London and (b) the remainder of the south-east. [31392]

  Ms Keeble
  Bus services, and transport issues in London in general, are a matter for the Mayor and Transport for London. However, I hope that the following will be helpful.

  The Government allocate a block transport grant which the Mayor is free to spend in accordance with the Transport Strategy for London. In the current financial year that grant is some £714 million, and will rise to just

  325W
  over £1 billion next year. The Government have also supported specific projects such as the London Bus Initiative, through its Capital Modernisation Fund. The Mayor has consistently stated that investment in buses is one of his highest priorities.

  As far as bus services outside London are concerned, it is for individual local authorities to decide how much of their Revenue Support Grant settlement to allocate to the support of bus services.

  However, authorities in the south-east, as elsewhere, benefit from the specific funding schemes we have introduced to support bus services. Authorities in the south-east Government office region have been allocated a total of £9.14 million in Rural Bus Subsidy Grant in the current financial year. This will increase to £10.46 million in 2002–03. In addition, we have recently announced awards for authorities in the south-east totalling £2.7 million as a result of latest round of the Rural Bus Challenge and of £461,000 from first round of the Urban Bus Challenge. We have also awarded £425,000 for an Urban Bus Challenge project in London.

  In addition, under support for capital expenditure to implement their local transport plans, authorities in the south-east outside London have been allocated £179 million for local transport projects in 2002–03. Bus services will benefit significantly from many of these projects.

  In addition all operators of local bus services, inside and outside London, receive Fuel Duty Rebate from my Department.

  London Rail Termini
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answers of 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 866–67W, on London rail termini and Waterloo, if it is his policy to permit the new proposed Wessex franchise to operate services into Waterloo. [31542]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The review of whether services using Waterloo should continue to be controlled by a single operator has not yet been commenced by the Strategic Rail Authority. Statutory consultees will be involved by the authority in this review.

  Ireland/UK/Benelux Road Link
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the status is of the Ireland/UK/Benelux road link in the Essen list, with particular reference to the proposed route west of the M6 motorway. [31544]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Ireland/UK/Benelux road link is one of the 14 transport trans-European network (TEN) projects to which the Essen European Council attributed particular importance. There are no plans to change this status. Decision 1692/96/EC provides guidelines for the development of the TEN and Annex 1 to the Decision contains a map of the TEN road network in the UK. The European Commission has recently published proposals to amend the guidelines and in negotiations the Government will seek to ensure that all routes on the 326W
  UK road map—including the one west of the M6 motorway—are, if appropriate, updated to reflect current circumstances.

  Multi-modal Studies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many multi-modal studies(a) have been completed and (b) will be completed during 2002. [31539]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following list shows the multi-modal studies that have reported.Multi-modal study

  Access to Hastings

  Cambridge to Huntingdon (A 14)

  South-east Manchester (Stockport, Manchester Airport Link West, Poynton)

  West midlands area (M5/M6 and M42 between M40 and M6).

  A list of the multi-modal studies expected to report in 2002 are set out as follows:
  Multi-modal study

  West midlands to north-west (M6)

  Tyneside area (A 1/A19)

  South and west Yorkshire motorway box (M1 J30 to A1 west Yorks/M18/M62 and A1(M)

  A453 (M1 to J24 (Nottingham)

  North/south movements in east midlands (M1 junctions 21 to 30)

  Hull (east/west) corridor (A63 and A1033 to port of Hull)

  A1 (north of Newcastle)

  London to Ipswich (A12)

  South coast (Southampton to Folkestone coastal corridor)—(M27, A27 and A259)

  M60 junction 12–18 (west to north Manchester)

  London to south midlands (A1, M1, M11, A5 and A421)

  London to Reading (Thames Valley -M4)

  London to south-west and south Wales (A303, M4)

  ORBIT-Transport solutions around London (M25).

  Council Tax
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people have not paid council tax in each local authority in descending order for 2000–01. [30573]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Central Government does not collect information on the number of people who have not paid council tax.

  Rate Capping
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which local authorities have been rate-capped in each of the last 10 years. [30475]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I am able to provide information on English local authorities only. Local government finance is a devolved matter and capping in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  For the financial years 1991–92 to 2001–02 the following English local authorities were capped for the purposes of the community charge and council tax:
  327W
  1991–92

  Basildon

  Bristol

  Ipswich

  Lambeth

  Norwich

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Warwickshire county council

  Wirral

  1992–93

  Basildon

  Cheltenham

  Gloucester

  Gloucestershire

  Greenwich

  Hillingdon

  Lambeth

  Warwickshire

  1993–94

  Castle Point

  Gloucestershire

  Harlow

  1994–95

  City of Sheffield

  1995–96

  Devon county council

  Gloucestershire county council

  Shropshire county council

  Somerset county council

  Lincolnshire police authority

  Barnsley metropolitan borough

  City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  City of Sheffield

  City of Norwich

  1996–97

  Cambridgeshire county council

  Oxfordshire county council

  1997–98

  Oxfordshire county council

  Somerset county council

  Warwickshire county council

  1998–99

  Derbyshire county council

  1999–2000

  None

  2000–01

  None

  2001–02

  None.

  Rent Arrears
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the level of rent arrears was by local authority in descending order in 2000–01. [30473]
  328W
  Ms Keeble
  A table showing the level of rent arrears as reported by each local authority in England at the end of the financial year 2000–01 has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The local authorities are shown in descending order of total arrears.

  Mortgage Arrears
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many households were in mortgage arrears by region, expressed as(a) a percentage and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentage figures, in the latest year for which figures are available. [30583]

  Ms Keeble
  This information is not collected by my Department. Data are compiled by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, but only for the United Kingdom as a whole and not for individual regions. The number of UK households in mortgage arrears of three months or more in 2000 were as follows:

  Length of arrears

  Number of households

  As percentage of all households with mortgages

  3–6 months

  95,260

  0.85

  6–12 months

  47,820

  0.43

  Over 12 months

  20,820

  0.19

  All with arrears of 3 months plus

  163,900

  1.47

  Source:

  Council of Mortgage Lenders

  Housing Benefit Officers
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many housing benefit officers were employed by local authorities in each of the last 10 years. [30477]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested is not available.

  Property Repossessions
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many court repossessions of property there were in each of the past 15 years. [30567]

  Ms Keeble
  The numbers of properties in the United Kingdom repossessed by mortgage lenders in each of the past 15 years is estimated to have been as follows:

  Properties repossessed

  1986

  24,090

  1987

  26,390

  1988

  18,510

  1989

  15,810

  1990

  43,890

  1991

  75,540

  1992

  68,540

  1993

  58,540

  1994

  49,210

  1995

  49,410

  1996

  42,560

  1997

  32,770

  1998

  33,820

  1999

  30,030

  2000

  22,960

  Source:
  329W
  Council of Mortgage Lenders

  Household Overcrowding
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the number of households that are officially described as overcrowded by region according to(a) percentage figures and (b) total number, ranked in descending order according to percentage figures in the latest year for which figures are available. [30584]

  Ms Keeble
  No estimates are available based on the statutory definition of overcrowding in the Housing Act (1985). The information provided in the table is based on the 'bedroom standard', which is a well established statistical measure of overcrowding.

  Households in England, 2000–01: Difference from bedroom Standard1

  One or more bedrooms per household below the standard

  Region

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  London

  178

  6

  North-west

  68

  2

  West midlands

  49

  2

  East midlands

  36

  2

  East

  42

  2

  South-east

  61

  2

  South-west

  35

  2

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  33

  2

  North-east

  17

  1

  England

  518

  3

  1'Bedroom standard' is used as an indicator of occupation density. A standard number of bedrooms is allocated to each household in accordance with its age/sex/marital status composition and the relationship of the members to one another.

  Source:

  Survey of English Housing, DTLR

  Gatwick
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what legal agreement exists between the Government and the BAA in respect of an additional runway at Gatwick. [31600]

  Mr. Spellar
  There is no agreement between the Government and BAA plc about an additional runway at Gatwick airport. But there is in place an agreement between the local authority, West Sussex county council, and the then British Airports Authority, which was agreed in August 1979, under the terms of section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1970.

  Ports (Policing)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has completed his review of the policing of ports; and if he will make a statement. [31292]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 7 November 2001,Official Report, column 296W. Work on the review has been delayed by other priority work on security issues, but I hope that the review will he completed by end April.
  330W
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many police officers were employed in ports police forces at the most recent date for which figures are available. [31293]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There were 192 port police officers in August 2001.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on service level agreements between Ordnance Survey and local authorities. [31012]

  Ms Keeble
  The current service level agreement between Ordnance Survey and local authorities took effect on 1 April 1999 and will continue until 31 March 2004. This five year agreement covers a range of organisations including county councils, borough councils, district councils, fire and police authorities and national parks.

  The agreement allows for the provision of both large and small scale mapping to all participating organisations. The benefits of the service level agreement to the local authority community are wide ranging. The agreement provides a vehicle from which local authorities are able to obtain digital and paper mapping with both ease and speed. This has led to the widespread use of Ordnance Survey digital map data across the local government sector for use in their support of the local community. This widespread take up of Ordnance Survey's map data also ensures consistency of use across local government.

  Youth Forums
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what effort he has made to encourage the creation of youth forums in each region; and if he will make a statement. [29971]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  In November 2001 I published "Learning to Listen: Core Principles for the Involvement of Children and Young People". It commits Government Departments to increasing opportunities for children and young people to have a bigger say about policies and services relevant to them across Government and in their communities. Youth forums provide one way to help achieve this.

  Both the Children's Fund and the Connexions Service provide financial and other support to local youth forums. The funding we are making available through the new "Transforming Youth Work Development Fund" will provide additional resources to promote increased participation, help to ensure there is enhanced youth work provision to underpin it, and contribute to our efforts to increase young people's engagement with local democracy.

  The Government also support the initiative being spearheaded by the Local Government Association and the National Youth Agency, "Hear by Right", that fosters the active involvement of children and young people in decision making within their communities.
  331W

  Child Workers
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many child workers were registered with local authorities in each of the last 20 years. [25016]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Children and young people below the minimum school leaving age wishing to work must obtain permits from their local authority allowing them to do so. Numbers are not collected centrally.

DEFENCE

  Public Relations Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [27400]

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

  However, since 1999–2000, a breakdown of Ministry of Defence's public relations expenditure has been published in the annual departmental performance report, broken down into categories of Royal Navy, Army, Royal Air Force and civilian recruitment, PR, marketing and business support services, Chief of PR, sales promotion, scholarships and National Employers' Liaison Committee.

  Publicity expenditure figures were also published in the 1997–98 departmental performance report but on a slightly different basis.

  Copies of these documents are available in the Library of the House.

  Tanzania
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when a judgment was made by the Arms Working Party on the suitability of the sale of the BAE Systems air-traffic control system to Tanzania under the MOD form 680 procedure; [28299]

  (2) when the application for a Tanzanian air traffic control system was considered under the MOD Form 680 procedure; and what the decision was. [29440]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: Siemens Plessey Electronic Systems (now part of Alenia Marconi Systems) submitted an F680 application in July 1997 for the supply of a radar system to Tanzania. In August 1997 the Government advised the company of preliminary clearance to supply an air-traffic control system to Tanzania subject to certain conditions. Within these conditions, it is routinely made clear to companies that such advice does not constitute an export licence, nor does it guarantee that a licence will be approved for the future export of goods or technology.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which Government Departments and agencies are represented on the Arms Working Party under the MOD Form 680 procedure; [28297]
  332W
  (2) which (a) sections and (b) Departments are represented at the Arms Working Party under the Form 680 procedure; and who has lead responsibility for assessing projects in terms of sustainable development. [29439]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: The term "Arms Working Party" is colloquially used to describe the F680 process under which informal advice is provided to companies on the prospects for approval at the marketing stage. Advisers consulted include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Non-Proliferation Department, Geographical Departments, Human Rights Policy Department), the Ministry of Defence (Defence Intelligence, Equipment Security Branch, Headquarters Security Branch) and other Departments and agencies as necessary.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he was first informed of the views of the World bank about the(a) suitability and (b) cost of the Tanzanian air traffic control system. [29443]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: I am withholding this information under Exemption 2 (Internal discussion and advice) of Part II of the Government's Code of Practice on access to Government Information.

  Royal Marines
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason permission was not sought for Royal Marines to land at Bagram Airport before they arrived. [30780]

  Mr. Hoon
  The deployment of Royal Marines to Bagram was a coalition operation carried out in close consultation with US forces. Appropriate contacts were made with elements of the Northern Alliance.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Civil Contingencies Secretariat over the new chapter of the Strategic Defence Review. [30791]

  Mr. Hoon
  Officials from the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, along with those from a number of other Government Departments, are contributing to the Ministry of Defence's continuing work on the new chapter to the Strategic Defence Review.

  Tax (Forces Personnel)
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many retired officers and their widows have been identified as incorrectly paying tax on retired pay awarded since 1952 on the grounds of disability attributable to or aggravated by service. [31467]

  Dr. Moonie
  Further to the statement I gave the House on 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 891–902, the latest available figures are that the Ministry of Defence has identified 967 retired Army personnel and 75 widows of retired Army personnel who are entitled to a refund of tax mistakenly paid on attributable service invaliding pensions. We continue to publicise the error and further cases may emerge.
  333W

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many deaths have been caused by military action in Afghanistan among(a) coalition forces, (b) Taliban forces and (c) civilians since 11 September 2001. [31142]

  Mr. Hoon
  Four US personnel have been killed in action and 17 US personnel have been killed in non-hostile incidents. Regarding Taliban and civilian deaths, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 860W, to my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham). It is as difficult to estimate the number of Taliban military casualties as it is to estimate the number of civilian casualties.

  Queen's Royal Lancers
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to improve recruitment to the Queen's Royal Lancers; [31603]

  (2) to what causes he attributes the deficit in the established strength of the Queen's Royal Lancers. [31604]

  Mr. Ingram
  I apologise for the fact that, due to a coding error which excluded personnel not recorded against the main Unit Identification Number, eg Rear Party personnel, the establishment and strength of the regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps, the information that I gave to the hon. Member in my answer of 24 January 2002,Official Report, column 993W, was incorrect.

  Consequently the current deficit in the Queen's Royal Lancers (QRL), as at 1 December 2001, is 41; not 198 as previously stated.

  In the coming financial year, like other regiments, the QRL will benefit from a package of resources provided by the Army Training and Recruitment Agency's Recruiting Group to assist Regimental Recruiting Teams. This will include the provision of a minibus and recruiting trailer, mobile telephones and computing equipment, as well as funding for travel and marketing expenses.

  Army Attributable Pensions
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the number of Army pensioners who have lost income through the taxation error who are resident in(a) Cumbria and (b) Copeland; and if he will make a statement. [31010]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information identifying, from among the Army pensioners so far known to have been incorrectly taxed, those resident in Cumbria and Copeland could be provided only at disproportionate cost. We cannot at this time give a reliable estimate for how many new cases may emerge as a result of recent publicity, but we do not believe the numbers will be large.

  Exercise Saif Sareea II
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to publish the Lessons Learned report on Exercise Saif Sareea II. [31602]

  Mr. Ingram
  The full report on Exercise Saif Sareea is likely to be completed around the end of March. However, we have no plans to make this classified document public.
  334W

  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
  [pursuant to the reply, 24 January 2002, c. 993W]: Owing to a coding error which excluded personnel not recorded against the main Unit Identification Number, eg Rear Party personnel, the establishment and strength of the regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps was incorrect. The correct figures are detailed in the table:

  Regiment

  Establishment

  Strength

  Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment

  324

  312

  Queens Dragoon Guards

  358

  384

  Scots Dragoon Guards

  451

  390

  9th/12thRoyal Lancers

  358

  354

  2 Royal Tank Regiment

  460

  452

  Royal Dragoon Guards

  451

  459

  Household Cavalry Regiment

  421

  416

  Queen's Royal Hussars

  451

  426

  King's Royal Hussars

  451

  435

  Light Dragoons

  429

  392

  Queen's Royal Lancers

  451

  410

  Joint Nuclear Biological and Chemical Regiment

  200

  196

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Remuneration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [26315]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of individuals in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Royal Parks Agency receiving annual remuneration over £100,000 in the last four years is as follows:

  1998: 0

  1999: 1

  2000: 1

  2001: 1.

  No individual received a salary over £200,000 in the last four years. These figures are based on total gross salary. No allowances or bonuses were paid.
  335W
  Information on non-departmental public bodies is provided in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies".

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the cost of theft

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  DCMS1

  1,909

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Parks Agency

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency2

  13,600

  —

  —

  —

  Non-departmental public bodies3

  417,493

  240,530

  6,228

  79,872

  1Net of amounts recovered.

  2Historic Royal Palaaces Agency became an non-department public body on 1 April 1998.

  3Includes Lottery Bodies.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what expenditure has been incurred by her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if she will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [27938]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's expenditure on opinion polling, focus groups and other forms of market research for the years in question is shown in the table.

  £

  Year

  Opinion polling

  Focus groups

  Market research

  1998–99

  0

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  0

  2000–01

  0

  0

  0

  2001–02

  136,382

  227,320

  310,800

  1(a) Research undertaken that would assesss consumers' perceptions of digital television and (b) questions on culture and the Internet for Culture Online included in an omnibus survey.

  2Eight focus groups with teachers, children and adults for Culture Online.

  3An online survey of the use of culture websites of existing users of six cultural websites for Culture Online.

  The Department's agency, the Royal Parks Agency, has not incurred expenditure on opinion polling or focus groups during the years in question. Its expenditure on market research is shown in the table.

  £

  Year

  Market research

  1998–99

  29,000

  1999–2000

  30,000

  2000–01

  30,500

  2001–02

  41,500

  Note:

  The figure each year covers expenditure on the annual visitor survey, 2001–02 also includes expenditure on monitoring the Kensington Gardens cycle trial.

  Information on expenditure by the Department's non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  336W
  and fraud to (a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [27984]

  Dr. Howells
  The available information is given in the table:

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) her Department, (ii) her agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which she has had responsibility in each of the last four years. [30066]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department holds leasehold properties, used for its central London accommodation. There was one instance when such a property was left unoccupied for nine months from February to October 2001, while the lease was being transferred to the Cabinet Office. My estimate of the cost of this is £240,000.

  My Department does not hold information centrally on the properties owned by the other public bodies, for which I am responsible, but I have contacted my agency, the Royal Parks Agency, for more information, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing a copy of my letter in the Libraries of both houses.

  Departmental Sponsorship
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the financial initiatives and resources sponsored by her Department in the last 12 months for Dorset, which are additional to the Government SSA grants. [29896]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department and our sponsored NDPBs are responsible for supporting an enormous range of cultural and leisure activity and funding is available from a variety of sources. In some cases it is possible to identify where this funding has been allocated to projects in Dorset but there are grants for the south-west region, and for England as a whole, which it is not possible to disaggregate.

  According to information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the National Lottery awards database a total of £14,428,240 National Lottery funding was distributed to 205 different projects in Dorset during 2001. £3,700,000 of this related to sport and leisure activity and £797,412 to libraries. I am arranging for a full list of Dorset's lottery awards in the last 12 months to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  337W
  Resource—The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, has allocated £82,000 to the tank museums in Bovington. In addition Resource has so far this year provided £485,903 to the South West Museums Council which covers the Dorset area. A further £1 19,379 will be paid next month.

  Apsley House
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish the details of the proposal for a trust to manage Apsley House and the Wellington Museum referred to on 9 March 2000 by Lord McIntosh of Haringey. [29977]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has considered a number of options for the future management of Apsley House and the Wellington Museum including the establishment of an independent trust. No decisions have been taken in favour of a trust as opposed to any other option. If the Contracting Out Order is approved, the Department will invite tenders from any interested parties.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on whose authority the advertisements for the post of Director of the Wellington Museum Trust, were placed. [29980]

  Dr. Howells
  The Wellington Museum Trust is an independent body created to bid for the contract to run the Wellington Museum and to maintain the fabric of Apsley House, provided that the Contracting Out Order currently

  £

  Regional Tourist Board

  Board members emoluments1

  Executive directors' emoluments2

  Operational expenses3

  Total costs4

  Cumbria

  0

  130,294

  n/a

  1,574,077

  East of England

  0

  79,138

  n/a

  2,006,799

  London

  20,000

  91,406

  669,126

  4,981,111

  Heart of England

  0

  52,270

  n/a

  2,946,964

  Northumbria

  0

  5—

  963,146

  1,696,614

  North West

  5,000

  5—

  439,777

  3,378,632

  South East England

  0

  65,765

  754,129

  1,632,227

  Southern

  0

  104,720

  605,984

  4,190,237

  South West

  9,000

  92,235

  n/a

  2,612,918

  Yorkshire

  0

  5—

  n/a

  4,078,187

  1Only three RTB's indicate that fees are payed to their chairman and non-executive directors.

  2Where separately identified, emoluments for executive directors are recorded. Some boards refer to the executive directors as board members.

  3Some RTB's publish an aggregated group expenditure. Others allocate overheads over a range of activities.

  4None of the RTB's publish an annual budget in their accounts. Total annual expenditure is shown here.

  5For the Northumbria, North West and Yorkshire RTBs, neither the chief executive nor the finance director are listed as a director of the board.

  Note:

  Most RTB's appear to pay an attendance allowence to their board members only if they are not funded by the entity that they are normally employed by. Expenses are not separately identify as they are not considered to be significant.

  Museums
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her policy towards making funds available for(a) the National Tramway Museum and (b) the other six museums which have been designated through her Department as having outstanding collections and which are not in receipt of core funding from central or local sources. [28507]

  Dr. Howells
  The National Tramway Museum and six other major independent museums are among the museums and galleries whose collections have been recognised as being of pre-eminent importance under the
  338W
  before Parliament is approved. The advertisement for a director of the trust was discussed with the Department. However, the trust does not require the Department's authority to place an advertisement and the appointment of a director will not require the Department's consent.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many tenders were received for the future management of Apsley House; [29978]

  (2) when she decided which tender for the management of Apsley House to accept. [29979]

  Dr. Howells
  No tenders have yet been invited. These will be sought if the draft Contracting Out Order to be debated in both Houses is approved.

  Tourist Boards
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was(a) the total bill for salaries and expenses for board members, (b) the administrative operating costs and (c) the total annual budget in the latest year for which figures are available for each tourist board in England. [30201]

  Dr. Howells
  The 10 regional tourist boards (RTBs) of England are private companies and not public bodies. They are not required to present their financial records to the Government for scrutiny. The English Tourist Council have identified the following financial details based on information provided by the RTB's 2000–01 annual reports.

  Designated Museums Scheme. The Designated Museums Challenge Fund, which has provided £15 million for designated museums over the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02, will continue with a further £10 million to be awarded in 2002–03 and 2003–04. Designated Museums will shortly have an opportunity to bid for the first tranche of £5 million.

  Children's Television
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the regulation of advertising in relation to children's television programmes. [30282]
  339W
  Dr. Howells
  Under the UK's broadcasting arrangements, responsibility for what is broadcast on television rests with the broadcasters and the broadcasting regulatory bodies. Television advertising is subject to regulation by the Independent Television Commission (ITC) and broadcasters must comply with their codes of advertising standards and practices.

  The general principle governing advertising to children is that, at times when large numbers of children are likely to be viewing, no product or service may be advertised, and no method of advertising may be used, which might result in harm to them physically, mentally or morally; and no method of advertising may be employed which takes advantage of the natural credulity and sense of loyalty of children (regarded as those aged 15 and under).

  Broadcasting Licences
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to change the law in respect of ownership of digital broadcast licences by religious broadcasters; and if she will make a statement. [31072]

  Dr. Howells
  The recent paper "Consultation on Media Ownership Rules" announced that the Government will bring forward legislation to allow religious bodies to hold a local digital sound programme licence. The paper also invited views on whether the restrictions on ownership of other terrestrial licences by religious bodies should be relaxed, and we are currently considering the responses. The Government will publish details of their proposals in the draft Communications Bill which we expect to publish this spring.

  Broadcast Revenues (Sport)
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the voluntary code obliging governing bodies of major sports to invest at least 5 per cent. of broadcasting revenues in the grassroots development of their sports; and if he will make a statement. [31172]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government believe that the Central Council of Physical Recreation's Voluntary Code on Broadcasting has been a great success since it was launched in 1996. Governing bodies in cricket, both codes of rugby, and other major sports have signed the code, and many invest rather more than the minimum of 5 per cent. of broadcasting income which it stipulates. Football's investments under the code have been successfully channelled through the Football Foundation since July 2000. The broadcasting provisions of the code apply to all signatories; these safeguard secondary, free-to-air television coverage of many major sports events.

  National Lottery
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what procedures are in place to ensure an efficient transfer of lottery funds to the projects to which they have been committed; and if she will make a statement. [31598]

  Mr. Caborn
  There is no single central procedure designed specifically to facilitate swift transfer of committed funds to projects: this reflects their diversity.340W
  Project operators draw down funds from distributing bodies, and distributing bodies from the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF), when they are needed. Much depends on the nature and size of individual projects, the terms on which individual distributing bodies offer grant to particular projects and the arrangements agreed between the distributing body and the project operator. We are, however, considering a number of measures to speed up transfer of NLDF funds to projects.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had in January with lottery distributors regarding the transfer of lottery funds to the projects to which they have been committed; on what date these discussions took place; and if she will make a statement. [31597]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met chairs of the National Lottery distributing bodies on 24 January. The distribution of National Lottery proceeds, and the Government's wish to see the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF) balance fall, were agenda items.

  The Department is considering, with the distributing bodies, a range of measures which might facilitate a faster release of the 92 per cent. of NLDF funds that are committed to projects. These include revising financial directions to permit advance payment for low risk projects and, to help applicants get their projects under way more quickly, taking a more flexible approach to partnership funding and providing more funding for project planning.

  Listed Places of Worship
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on implementation of the Listed Places of Worship grant scheme. [27589]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The new grant scheme to assist repairs and maintenance to listed places of worship was launched by Baroness Blackstone on 4 December 2001. Initial estimates are that the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme could be worth up to £30 million per year. There is no cap on the scheme; all listed places of worship that meet the criteria will receive a grant. CSL Group Ltd., our appointed contractors for the scheme, will be making the first grant payments to applicants later this month.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Communications Network
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, on how many occasions since 31 August 2001 the PDVN server has been out of action; what defects he has identified; and what action is being taken to rectify such defects. [31113]

  Michael Fabricant
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Parliamentary Data and Video Network (PDVN) consists of interconnected systems hosted on a large number of servers. Since 31 August 2001, the Parliamentary Data and Video Network (PDVN) has suffered three major failures affecting the whole of the

  341W
  network. These occurred on 3 October 2001, 20 November 2001 and 21 November 2001. The PDVN had previously remained stable for 19 months. Subsequent investigation into these failures, which were related, identified saturation and overload of Central Processing Units as an immediate cause. Action was taken to rectify this and other faults. The Parliamentary Communications Directorate (PCD) has since asked the firm responsible for maintaining the PDVN to provide quicker on-site assistance in the event of a major failure. PCD staff have also been trained to respond more swiftly.

  There have been other smaller-scale interruptions to individual services offered on the PDVN since 31 August. Some of these have occurred because of routine maintenance at weekends. If the hon. Gentleman has concerns about a specific service failure, he may like to raise them with the Director of Communications, Mr. Matthew Taylor.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what information he has collated about the time taken to log on to the Parliamentary Communications Network by hon. Members and their staff(a) within the Parliamentary Estate and (b) remotely; what defects he has identified; and what action is being taken to rectify such defects. [31114]

  Michael Fabricant
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Parliamentary Communications Directorate does not routinely collate information on login times. However, poor performance with regard to the length of time it takes to log into the Parliamentary Data and Video Network (PDVN), whether from within the Parliamentary Estate or from elsewhere, will result in an increase in the number of calls to the Parliamentary Communications Helpdesk (extension 2001). Defects are then identified, enabling action to be taken.

  The Citrix service which enables remote access to the PDVN has been enhanced over the past 12 months. Reliability has improved and login times have been reduced. However, if the hon. Gentleman is having difficulties, he might like to raise the matter with the Director of Communications, Mr. Matthew Taylor.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when he last sought views on its performance from users of the parliamentary communications network. [31115]

  Michael Fabricant
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Information Committee regularly passes on to officials in the Parliamentary Communications Directorate feedback from Members and staff on the performance of the Parliamentary Data and Video Network (PDVN). In December 2001, the committee e-mailed a bulletin to all Members with PDVN accounts, describing issues being considered by the committee. The bulletin was also publicised in the All-Party Whip. A number of Members responded with comments and suggestions, some of which related to the performance of the PDVN. These are actively being taken forward by the committee.
  342W

  Modernisation
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the President of the Council if he will propose a mechanism to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons whereby hon. Members who do not attend select committees other than for personal or health matters are removed after six months and replaced by other hon. Members. [31641]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is currently considering a range of issues concerning Select Committees, including the matter of attendance. We hope to publish our report shortly.

WALES

  KPMG
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contracts his Department has with KPMG; and what the value is of each one. [31323]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many environmental appraisals have been published by his Department since 1 January 2001; and if he will list the last four; [29033]

  (2) how many officials from his Department have attended the Environmental Appraisal and Integration into Policy training course run by the Civil Service College; [29037]

  (3) what procedures his Department has to ensure environmental appraisals are undertaken prior to (a) administrative and (b) policy decisions being made; [29035]

  (4) when the last occasion was on which he requested an environmental appraisal before making a policy decision. [29034]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: My primary role is to safeguard the devolution settlement for Wales. The development of detailed policies of the kind which require environmental appraisal generally falls either to the National Assembly, or to other Government Departments in the case of non-devolved policy areas. As a consequence, my Department has undertaken no environmental appraisals since it was established on 1 July 1999.

  My officials are aware of the need to subject relevant policies and other decisions to environmental appraisal. In the event of environmental appraisal being required of any Wales Office policy, steps would be taken to ensure that it was undertaken by individuals with the necessary knowledge and skills.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty sproperties owned by (i) his

  343W
  Department, (ii) his agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which he has had responsibility in each of the last four years. [30077]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department has had no empty properties since it came into being in July 1999. Nor does it have any agencies or NDPBs. Information in the form requested is not available for before July 1999.

  Special Advisers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [28909]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Prime Minister gave him on 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 593W.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Annual Accounts 2000–01
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the Treasury Solicitor's Department Agency Annual Accounts 2000–01 will be published. [32395]

  The Solicitor-General
  I can confirm that I have today placed a copy of the annual accounts in the Library.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the total external spend by her Department was on private finance initiative consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PFI consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by her Department over this period; and if she will make a statement. [31031]

  The Solicitor-General
  My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, and the Treasury Solicitor's Department have not employed any private finance initiative consultants in the last four years.

  The total external spend by the Crown Prosecution Service on private finance initiative consultants in each of the last calendar four years was:

  £

  1998

  0

  1999

  0

  2000

  408,204

  2001

  1,004,367

  The Compass project, management for an IT service, is the only private finance initiative that CPS has undertaken and this began in January 2000. The number of full-time equivalent consultants employed was 2.05 in 2000, and 4.42 in 2001.
  344W
  The billed consultancy days for each year were:

  Year

  Days

  1998

  0

  1999

  0

  2000

  450

  2001

  973

  The implied average cost of each PFI consultant was £907 in 2000 and £1,032 in 2001. The Crown Prosecution Service has used seven consultancy firms on this PFI project during this period.

  The CPS employed external consultants on the Compass PFI project where the necessary expertise was not available within its own resources and where best practice was to employ independent external advisers. This approach delivered an effective procurement team, with the necessary skills to deliver a successful procurement on time, on specification and on budget.

  The total external spend by the Serious Fraud Office on private finance initiative consultants in each of the last four tax years was:

  £

  1998–99

  29,724

  1999–2000

  76,489

  2000–01

  194,650

  2001–02

  0

  The total figure of £303,863 was spent on project management, IT, contract, procurement and legal consultancy in relation to the letting of a PFI contract for an IT document management system. Three consultancy bodies were involved, one of which was CCTA. The remaining information requested could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many times she has refused to meet hon. Members on constituency matters since taking office; and if she will make a statement about the criteria she uses in arriving at such decisions. [30964]

  The Solicitor-General
  Since my appointment I have not turned down any requests for meetings with hon. Members on constituency matters.

  I assess requests for meetings with hon. Members on a case by case basis, but generally I would agree to them unless there is a strong reason not to.

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many appointments to outside bodies she has made since her appointment. [31053]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have made no such appointments. However the Attorney-General has appointed Mrs. Rosalind Wright CB as Director of the Serious Fraud Office for a further year. This appointment was announced on 18 January 2002.
  345W
  Mrs. Wright, whose original contract ends on 21 April 2002, will continue to direct the Serious Fraud Office until 20 April 2003.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many(a) CPS areas and (b) legal aid firms she has visited since her appointment. [31052]

  The Solicitor-General
  Since my appointment as Solicitor-General I have visited CPS offices in Hampshire, Durham, Nottinghamshire, West Yorkshire and Avon and Somerset and have visited five branches of CPS London. I have not visited any legal aid firms but have had meetings with the Law Society and the Birmingham Law Society.

SCOTLAND

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the private money involved in the Skye bridge private finance initiative has been classified as public borrowing; and if she will make a statement. [26718]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Issues relating to the Skye bridge are devolved under the Scotland Act 1998 and now fall within the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. Skye bridge was designed, built, financed and is operated under a PFI contract by Skye Bridge Ltd. (SBL). Under the Concession Agreement, signed in December 1991, SBL invested £28 million (1991 prices), the bulk of which was provided by a combination of commercial bank debt, a European Investment bank loan and index-linked loan stock. This private funding is not classified as public sector borrowing.

  Glasgow/Edinburgh Airports (Rail Links)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her assessment is of the impact on the Scottish economy of delay in investment in rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. [28428]
  346W
  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The development of surface links to airports should be addressed in the context of expected growth in passenger usage at Scotland's airports. The Government, jointly with the Scottish Executive, will shortly publish a consultation document on the development of air services and airports in Scotland. The results of this consultation exercise will feed into the preparation of the Government's White Paper on the future of the United Kingdom's air services and airports for the next 30 years to be published at the end of the year.

  The Government have, with the Strategic Rail Authority and Scottish Executive, sponsored a scoping study into potential improvements in rail access to Scottish airports. These proposals are now being developed through a detailed economic and engineering study, led by the Scottish Executive in partnership with the Government, BAA, Scottish Enterprise, and the SRA. The study is examining options for direct rail links into Glasgow and Edinburgh airports.

  Scottish Bus Group Pension Fund
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury,Official Report, 21 January 2002, column 661W, on the Scottish Bus Group Pension Fund, on what dates Scotland Office Ministers discussed the matter of the Scottish Bus Group Pension Fund Holders with Treasury Ministers; and what view the Scotland Office put forward in those discussions. [30869]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: I am in regular contact with Treasury Ministers on a wide range of matters, including the Scottish Transport Group Pension Fund surplus. These discussions are held on a confidential basis.

  I am pleased to note that, following recent discussions between the Treasury and the Scottish Executive, the amount now available for distribution to eligible former pension fund members has increased to £118 million, which I am sure is welcome news to them. It is necessary for the trustees to wind-up the pension schemes before ex-gratia payments can be made to former pension fund members.
  347W

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  International Whaling Commission
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent discussions she has had with the Japanese Foreign Minister over her country's relationship with developing countries at the International Whaling Commission; and if she will make a statement; [31516]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the Japanese relationship with developing countries at the International Whaling Commission; and if she will make a statement. [31515]

  Mr. Morley
  No discussions have taken place.

  The UK Government would not and could not condone action directly linking overseas aid in exchange for support of any particular whaling policies. At the last annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission, we sponsored a resolution, agreed by consensus, which stressed the importance of transparency and lack of undue interference or coercion from other members within the IWC.

  Zoos
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment her Department has made of the extent to which the treatment of elephants in zoos within the UK is consistent with good practice in animal welfare; and if she will make a statement; [30450]

  (2) if she will review the regulations relating to the management of elephants in zoos; and if she will make a statement. [30210]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: I have no current plans to review the legislation relating to the management of elephants in zoos. The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 makes clear that all animals, including elephants, should be kept in accommodation that is adequate for their proper care and well-being. Zoos are regularly inspected to ensure that that is the case and that all animals are treated in accordance with the guidance on animal welfare set out in the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice.

  Organic Produce
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps she is taking to encourage suppliers to make greater use of domestically produced organic produce; and if she will make a statement; [31297]

  (2) what studies she has made of the organic produce and supply industry in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [31298]

  Mr. Morley
  We have already made considerable support available to encourage conversion to organic farming, which has increased the quantities of UK organic produce available. The action plan for organic farming, which we will be developing with the stakeholders in the 348W
  light of the recommendations of the Policy Commission, will address the opportunities for UK producers to supply a higher share of the UK market for organic food.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) value and (b) proportion of organically grown produce, broken down by category, that was (i) imported and (ii) domestically produced for the UK market in each year since 1990. [31296]

  Mr. Morley
  The best estimates we have are as follows:

  Total retail value of UK organic market

  £ million

  2000

  2001

  Cereals and bakery products

  67

  93

  Dairy

  106

  148

  Multi-ingredients

  97

  125

  Meat

  24

  40

  Eggs

  31

  39

  Baby food

  24

  49

  Beverages>

  24

  40

  Fruit and vegetables

  230

  268

  Percentage of UK retail market supplied by UK product

  2000

  2001

  Cereals and bakery products

  25

  20

  Dairy

  60

  65

  Multi-ingredients

  20

  20

  Meat

  70

  55

  Eggs

  100

  90

  Baby food

  35

  50

  Beverages

  15

  20

  Fruit and vegetables

  15

  15

  We do not have information for previous years.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the regions considered at risk from nitrogen pollution of water supplies. [31517]

  Mr. Meacher
  All regions of England are potentially at risk from agricultural nitrogen pollution of water supplies. Under the nitrates directive (91/676/EEC) 66 nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZs) were originally designated in 1996 for the protection of current drinking water supplies in England from agricultural nitrate pollution. Following a European Court of Justice judgment in 2000, we now need to designate NVZs for the protection of all waters in England. These include surface and groundwaters which could be used as water supplies in the future. The minimum designations are now required to complete implementation of the directive, and on which we are currently consulting, include proposed NVZ areas in every region of England.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the options proposed in the consultation document "Implementing the Nitrates
  349W
  Directive" on agriculture by region; and if she will make a statement. [31518]

  Mr. Meacher
  A regulatory impact assessment of the proposals is included at Annexe E of the consultation document. This includes a compliance cost assessment

  Option 1 (100 per cent, designation): Summary of total compliance costs

  Sector and measure

  Proportion of farms affected (%)

  Estimated number of farms affected

  Total annual cost1(£)

  Average annual cost perform affected (£)

  Dairy sector

  Storage

  8

  1,810

  5,030,000

  2—

  Transport

  10

  2,210

  1,070,000

  2—

  Beef sector

  Storage

  2

  800

  290,000

  2—

  Transport

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sheep sector

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pig sector

  Storage

  5

  444

  1,140,000

  2—

  Transport

  100

  8,330

  3,390,000

  2—

  Poultry sector

  Storage

  0

  3n/a

  0

  0

  Transport

  100

  3n/a

  1,410,000

  2—

  Record keeping (all sectors)

  100

  141,000

  24,000,000

  200

  Total

  36,320,000

  1Numbers have been rounded to the nearest £10,000.

  2We have not presented the mean average cost here. This would not accurately represent the average cost for a 'typical' farmer in this sector. The vast majority of farms are likely to incur relatively low costs, depending on factors such as the extent of on-farm manure spreading capacity and existing slurry storage facilities. A minority of farms will incur higher costs.

  3It is not possible to provide a realistic figure for the number of commercial poultry farms affected from current agricultural census information. Calculations are based on an average-sized commercial poultry unit of 50,000 birds.

  Option 2 (80 per cent, designation): Summary of total compliance costs

  Sector and measure

  Proportion of farms affected (%)

  Estimated number of farms affected

  Total annual cost1(£)

  Average annual cost perform affected (£)

  Dairy sector

  Storage

  9

  1,265

  3,660,000

  2—

  Transport

  10

  1,430

  720,000

  2—

  Beef sector

  Storage

  3

  540

  180,000

  2—

  Transport

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sheep sector

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pig sector

  Storage

  6

  354

  1,040,000

  2—

  Transport

  100

  6,140

  2,860,000

  2—

  Poultry sector

  Storage

  0

  3n/a

  0

  0

  Transport

  100

  3n/a

  1,210,000

  2—

  Record keeping (all sectors)

  100

  100,000

  17,010,000

  200

  Total

  26,670,000

  1Numbers have been rounded to the nearest £10,000.

  2We have not presented the mean average cost here. This would not accurately represent the average cost for a 'typical' farmer in this sector. The vast majority of farms are likely to incur relatively low costs, depending on factors such as the extent of on-farm manure spreading capacity and existing slurry storage facilities. A minority of farms will incur higher costs.

  3It is impossible to provide a realistic figure for the number of commercial poultry farms affected from current agricultural census information. Calculations are based on an average-sized commercial poultry unit of 50,000 birds.

  350W
  broken down by agricultural sectors and by the different measures required. However, the assessment was made for England as a whole and there is no regional breakdown available. The tables included in Annexe E of the consultation document are reproduced.
  351W

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 859–60W, what proportion of announced funds and schemes was spent, broken down by category, during 2001–02. [31505]

  Alun Michael
  It is not possible to provide the information requested. The financial year to which it refers has not yet ended.

  End-of-life Vehicle Directive
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her role is in the implementation of the European end-of-life vehicle directive; and if she will make a statement. [31507]

  Mr. Meacher
  The EC directive on end-of-life vehicles (ELV) passed into European law in October 2000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has the responsibility for developing implementation options for the majority of the provisions in the directive. The Department works very closely with the Department of Trade and Industry on implementation of the directive and leads on the implementation of improved treatment facility standards required under Article 6 and Annexe 1 of the directive.

  Waste Recycling
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what percentage of households broken down by(a) government region and (b) constituency have doorstep collections of recyclable waste; and if she will make a statement; [29974]

  (2) what recent efforts have been made by (a) central and (b) local government to encourage recycling of (i) household and (ii) commercial/office waste; and if she will make a statement; [29975]

  (3) what percentage of household waste is recycled in the UK broken down by (a) government region and (b) constituency; which materials are most commonly and least commonly recycled within each of these areas; and if she will make a statement. [29973]

  Mr. Meacher
  The following table shows, for each Government region, the percentage of households that have some form of doorstep (kerbside) collections of recyclable waste and the percentage of household waste recycled.

  English regions 1999–2000

  Percentage

  Region

  Households served by kerbside

  Household waste recycled

  North East

  12

  4

  North West

  35

  7

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  32

  6

  East Midlands

  55

  10

  West Midlands

  24

  9

  East

  63

  14

  London

  46

  10

  South East

  63

  15

  South West

  58

  14

  England total

  44

  10

  352W
  The estimates in the table are based on information from the DEFRA annual survey of municipal waste management. The information is not available by constituency. The most commonly recycled material in all English regions, by all forms of household recyclable collections is paper and card, which constitutes over 60 per cent. of total recyclable materials. It is not possible to accurately quantify the least commonly recycled material. The Government have set a challenging target to increase the recycling of municipal waste to 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005. To ensure that all local authorities contribute to achieving this target, the Government have set each authority in England statutory performance standards for recycling and composting of household waste. They have also encouraged best value networks and issued guidance on joint municipal waste management strategies.

  We are helping councils deliver their statutory performance standards for recycling and composting through major extra funding from the Spending Review 2000. By 2003–04 revenue support will have risen by £1.1 billion over current provision; there is £220 million for PFI waste schemes over the spending review period; and there is a £140 million ring-fenced fund for waste and recycling over the next two years. £50 million of New Opportunities Fund moneys will also be available over the next two years to support community sector work on recycling in the UK.

  The EC directive on packaging and packaging waste (94/62/EC) has been implemented in the UK by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997. The directive requires that 50 per cent. of packaging waste, by weight, be recovered by 2001 half of which must be recycled, with a 15 per cent. recycling minimum per material. Much of the material to date has come from the industrial and commercial waste stream.

  European Food Safety Authority
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what meetings her officials have had since 1 October 2001 with European Union institutions concerning the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority; and what subjects were discussed. [31003]

  Mr. Morley
  None. The Food Standards Agency took the lead for the UK in negotiations on the European Food Safety Authority.

  Foot and Mouth
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has had on holding an independent public inquiry into her Department's handling of the foot and mouth crisis. [30713]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has continued to receive a number of representations from a variety of sources on this subject—mainly from county, district, borough and parish councils.

  The Department has also received two petitions.
  353W

  GM Crops
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what compensation is available to organic enterprises whose status is affected by adjacent GM crops. [27744]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: Liability in respect of any damage from GM crops, including that to organic status, is being addressed at both European and UK levels. The European Commission is developing proposals for an environmental liability regime covering a range of activities, including the release of GMOs.

  In order to minimise any impact from GM crops in the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs) on nearby conventional or organic farms, separation distances are used to help ensure that cross-pollination does not exceed 1 per cent. In many cases it will be much lower. We are working with organic sector bodies and the biotechnology and farming industry body, SCIMAC, to ensure that this situation continues in the final year of the evaluations.

  I am also considering whether domestic liability provisions for GM crops might be needed in the light of the Commission's wider proposals. The benefits of a domestic regime might include increased reassurance for the public and nearby farmers, an effective mechanism for correcting environmental damage, and ensuring that producers of GM seeds and growers of GM crops take proper account of their potential impact on non-GM production. In the meantime, an individual who feels they have suffered a loss due to the release of a GMO may be able to commence an action in the courts.

  Coastal Erosion
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to reduce the impact of coastal erosion. [31448]

  Mr. Morley
  We plan to reduce the impact of coastal erosion by investing in coastal defences in the highest risk areas. However as the bulk of expenditure is ultimately met by taxpayers, both DEFRA and the coast protection authorities have a responsibility to ensure that value for money is obtained when funding works.

  This Department provides grants for flood defence and coast protection capital works, and associated studies, which meet essential technical, economic and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score (based on departmental priorities, urgency and benefit:cost ratio). Further to increases in the last two Spending Reviews, additional funding of £51 million over the four years from 2000–01 was announced in November 2000 following the severe flooding. In all DEFRA flood and coastal defence funding is set to increase from £66 million in 2000–01 to £114 million in 2003–04. Funding for future years will be considered in the Spending Review process. Responsibility for deciding which projects to promote and their timing rests with the operating authorities. The operating authority for each area draws on its local knowledge to decide what needs to be done.
  354W
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost of the effects of coastal erosion in the UK in each of the last seven years. [31449]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department has policy responsibility for coastal erosion in England. No estimates have been made of the cost of the effects of coastal erosion for each of the last seven years. However DEFRA commissioned research into a National Appraisal of Assets at Risk from Flooding and Coastal Erosion and the outcome was published in September 2001. This research estimated that the "do nothing" annual average damage was £84.3 million per annum but investment to date had reduced this to £16.6 million per annum.

  Rhizomania
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many responses were received in the consultation on the future of rhizomania-protected zones which ended on 14 January; and what representations her Ministers have made to the Council of Ministers about rhizomania-protected zones. [31294]

  Mr. Morley
  459 responses were received. No representations on this issue have been made to the Council of Ministers because, when the rules for protected zones were adopted in 1993, the council gave the Standing Committee on Plant Health the powers to amend the annexes to the plant health directive which provide for protected zone status.

  Rodent Control
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will reintroduce the duty under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 for local authorities to notify her Department annually of their activities to control rats and mice; and if she will make a statement. [30743]

  Mr. Morley
  There are currently no plans to reintroduce this duty to local authorities.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the value of the rodent control industry in(a) England and (b) Wales, with reference to (i) the manufacturing of rodenticides and (ii) the activities of servicing companies in the last five years. [30744]

  Mr. Morley
  We have not made any such estimate of the rodent control industry in England. Rodent control issues in Wales are the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Energy Efficiency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the processes and initiatives by which the Government are encouraging the take-up of energy efficient techniques in industry. [7316]

  Mr. Meacher
  The climate change levy, a major component of the UK's climate change programme, was introduced on 1 April 2001 to encourage energy efficiency in industry. Climate change agreements with
  355W
  the most energy intensive sectors set challenging targets for reductions in energy consumption in return for an 80 per cent, reduction in the levy. The proceeds of the levy will be recycled to industry through a 0.3 percentage point reduction in national insurance contributions, and also through the provision of funds for the Carbon Trust.

  The Carbon Trust is a not-for-profit organisation, set up by the Government and the devolved Administrations to develop a clear framework to encourage the use of low-carbon technologies in the industry sector. The trust will take over management of the Government's Energy Efficiency Best Practice that has been running since 1989 as the UK's main source of energy efficiency information, providing best practice advice and support to organisations in the public and private sectors. The trust will also manage the enhanced capital allowance scheme that gives 100 per cent. first year capital allowances for businesses investing in approved energy saving equipment. Additionally the Carbon Trust will develop a low carbon innovation programme that will support new and emerging low-carbon technologies.

  Combined heat and power is another vital component of the Government's strategy to enhance the energy efficiency of the UK economy. The CHP quality assurance programme assesses "Good Quality" CHP production that is energy efficient in operation. This provides a passport to climate change levy exemptions and other benefits which encourage the take-up of CHP and contribute to the Government's 2010 target of 10,000 megawatts of installed Good Quality CHP.

  Vulnerable Household
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many people in England wil as a result of long-term sickness or disability, be living in vulnerable households in (a) private accomodation and (b) public sector housing; and what sources of data have been used to calculate these figures. [26426]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest source of data for the numbers in fuel poverty is taken from the 1998 Energy Follow Up Survey (EFUS) to the 1996 English House Condition Survey (EHCS), but information is not separately available from the 1998 EFUS split by long-term sickness and disability. However, the latest available information (relating to 1996) on figures for households where the head of household is long-term sick or disabled, is available from the Libraries of the House.

TREASURY

  Premature Death
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many adults died prematurely broken down by region, expressed as(a) a percentage and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentage for the latest year for which figures are available. [30579]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  356W
  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning how many adults have died prematurely by region expressed as (a) a percentage and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentage for the latest year in which figures are available. (30579)

  The figures requested are given in the table:

  Premature deaths1of adults2by Government office region, England3, 20004

  Number and percentage

  Government office region

  Number of deaths

  Percentage of all deaths at ages 15 and over

  North-east

  11.285

  40.1

  North-west

  28,544

  38.7

  London

  22,172

  37.9

  West Midlands

  20,110

  37.3

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  18,954

  36.6

  East Midlands

  15,242

  36.1

  East

  17,541

  33.1

  South-east

  25,493

  32.0

  South-west

  16,853

  30.5

  1Premature deaths were classified as those occurring below age 75

  2Adults were classified as those aged 15 and over

  3Residents only

  4Data are for occurrences of death per calendar year

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Mortality Rates
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) infant mortality rates and (b) child mortality rates were in descending order by (i) health authority and (ii) local authority in 2000–01. [30474]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what the (a) infant mortality rates and (b) child mortality rates were in descending order by (i) health authority and (ii) local authority in 2000–01. (30474)
  Figures are routinely compiled by calendar years. The most recent available figures are for 2000. These have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons were employed in the manufacturing industry in the UK in each of the last five years. [31365]

  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. John Randall, dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about how many persons were employed in manufacturing industry in the UK in each of the last five years. (31365)
  I refer you to the answer given in the Official Report No. 80 of 15 January 2002, columns 164–165 to Paul Flynn MP, which gives the requested information.
  357W
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many redundancies there were in the manufacturing sector in(a) the UK and (b) the Uxbridge constituency in each of the past seven years. [31364]

  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. John Randall, dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about redundancies in the manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom and Uxbridge constituency. (31364)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of the numbers of people who have been made redundant from a job in the manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom and in Government Office Regions. However, the LFS does not provide estimates of redundancies for Parliamentary constituencies. the LFS sample size for redundancies in manufacturing in Greater London region is too small to provide reliable estimates.
  The LFS provides estimates of redundancies in the manufacturing sector for each quarter from spring (March to May) 1997. Estimates prior to this are not available on a consistent basis. The estimates for the United Kingdom for each autumn (September to November) quarter from 1997 to 2001 are given in the table overleaf.

  Redundancies in the manufacturing sector1: United Kingdom autumn (September to November) quarters 1997–20012

  Autumn

  Redundancy level (Thousand)

  Redundancy rate (per 1,000 employees)3

  1997

  41

  8.7

  1998

  67

  13.8

  1999

  49

  10.4

  2000

  52

  11.6

  2001

  71

  16.3

  1Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 1992 Division D: Manufacturing.

  2Not seasonally adjusted.

  3The redundancy rate is based on the ratio of the redundancy level for the given quarter to the number of employees in the previous quarter, multiplied by 1,000.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Paid Work
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many adults aged over 25 years were seeking paid work by region expressed as(a) a percentage and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentages for the latest date for which figures are available. [30591]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about adults aged over 25 years seeking work. (30591)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of the number and percentage of people aged over 25 years who are seeking work: that is, people aged over 25 years who are unemployed, as defined by the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
  The latest available estimates are for autumn (September to November) 2001. These are given in the table below.
  358W

  ILO unemployed people1aged 25 and over by Government Office Region, autumn (September to November) 20012

  Percentage

  Thousand

  UK

  2.4

  953

  London

  3.5

  172

  North East

  3.1

  53

  Scotland

  3.0

  104

  Northern Ireland

  2.8

  30

  North West

  2.4

  113

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2.4

  81

  West Midlands

  2.3

  83

  Wales

  2.1

  42

  East Midlands

  2.1

  60

  Eastern

  1.8

  69

  South East

  1.7

  94

  South West

  1.5

  52

  1ILO unemployed people aged 25 and over as a percentage of all persons aged 25 and over.

  2Not seasonally adjusted.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey

  Teen Pregnancy
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many conceptions by girls under the age of 16 there were by region(a) expressed as a percentage of under-16s and (b) the total number, in descending order according to percentage figures for the latest year in which figures are available. [30599]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many conceptions to girls under the age of 16 there were by region (a) expressed as a percentage of under 16s and (b) the total number, in descending order according to percentage for the latest year in which figures are available. (30599)
  The figures requested are given in the table below:

  Conceptions to girls aged under 16 by Government Office Region (GOR), England, 1999

  GOR

  Number of conceptions to girls under 16

  Girls conceiving under 161as percentage of population

  North East

  499

  1.00

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  919

  0.98

  London

  1,058

  0.89

  North West

  1,178

  0.88

  West Midlands

  890

  0.88

  East Midlands

  616

  0.80

  South West

  658

  0.75

  South East

  963

  0.67

  Eastern

  627

  0.65

  1The population at risk of conceiving under 16 is conventionally taken to be girls aged 13–15

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Children (Accidental Deaths)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many accidental deaths of children there were broken
  359W
  down by region, expressed by (a) the percentage of population and (b) the total number, in descending order for the latest year for which figures are available. [30603]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the number of accidental deaths which occurred to children by region by (a) the percentage of the population and (b) the total number, in descending order for the latest year when figures were available. (30603)
  The figures requested are given in the table below:

  Deaths from accidents1, persons aged 0–152by Government Office Region, England3, 20004

  Number and rate per 100,000 population5

  Government office region

  Number of deaths

  Rate per 100,000 population aged 0–15 years

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  45

  4.4

  West Midlands

  41

  3.7

  East Midlands

  30

  3.6

  NorthWest

  51

  3.6

  South West

  30

  3.2

  North East

  15

  2.9

  London

  42

  2.8

  South East

  43

  2.6

  East

  27

  2.5

  1International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes E800-E949

  2Excludes deaths under 28 days

  3Residents only

  4Data are for occurrences of death per calendar year

  5To facilitate comparison between areas the figures are presented as a rate per 100,000 population resident in the area, rather than as a percentage, because of small numbers of events

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Low Pay
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many adults aged over 25 years were on low rates of pay by region, expressed as(a) a percentage and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentages for the latest date for which figures are available; [30580]

  (2) how many low paid adults aged 16 to 21 years there are, broken down by region, expressed as (a) a percentage and (b) total numbers, ranked in descending order according to percentage figures for the latest date available. [30614]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions about the number of adults aged 16 to 21 and over 25 on low rates of pay. (30614, 30580).
  360W
  The estimated number of jobs in the United Kingdom with pay below National Minimum Wage (NMW) rates in April 2001 was 320,000. Of these, 50,000 relate to 18–21 year olds and 270,000 relate to 22 year olds and over.
  The National Statistics website contains estimates for the numbers and proportions of jobs paid at below NMW rates for Government Office Regions for all persons, however, numbers are suppressed for some regions because of the small size of the estimates. Figures are posted at: http://www.statistics.gov.uldthemes/labour_market/pay_and_earnings/measuring_low_pay.asp
  No estimates at regional level are available for the age groups requested.

  Divorce
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children there were whose parents are divorced by region expressed(a) as a percentage of all children and (b) the total number, in descending order according to percentage for the latest year in which figures are available. [30600]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 30 January 2002:
  As Director of the Office of National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question on the number of children there were whose parents are divorced by region (a) expressed as a percentage and (b) the total number, in descending order according to percentage for the latest year in which figures are available. (30600).
  Estimated numbers for the United Kingdom for 2000, derived from the Labour Force Survey1, are as follows.

  Dependent children2living in divorced lone parent families3

  Thousand

  Government office region/country

  Number of children

  Percentage of UK total

  United Kingdom, 2000

  North West

  118.1

  13.7

  London

  111.4

  12.9

  South East

  105.6

  12.2

  West Midlands

  82.4

  9.5

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  80.5

  9.3

  East of England

  69.9

  8.1

  South West

  63.4

  7.3

  Wales

  61.7

  7.1

  Scotland

  55.6

  6.4

  East Midland

  54.3

  6.3

  North East

  44.0

  5.1

  Northern Ireland

  16.6

  1.9

  United Kingdom

  863.5

  100

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey 2000

  Illness
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people had a limiting long standing illness or disability by region expressed as(a) a percentage and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentage figures for the latest year in which figures are available. [30581]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  361W
  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of people with a limiting long standing illness or disability by region expressed as (a) a percentage and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentage figures for the latest year for which figures are available. (30581)
  The information requested is shown in the attached table.

  Persons who reported limiting long standing illness by Government Office Region (a) percentages (b) numbers ranked in descending order

  Great Britain: 2000

  Government office Region/County

  (a) Percentage reporting limiting long standing illness

  (b) Number reporting limiting long standing illness (000s)

  Weighted base (000s)=100% (total number of people in each region)

  North East

  23

  652

  2,783

  Merseyside

  23

  314

  1,342

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  21

  1,072

  5,113

  South West

  21

  1,022

  4,925

  Wales

  20

  584

  2,908

  North West

  20

  1,119

  5,688

  Scotland

  19

  971

  4,999

  East Midlands

  18

  664

  3,754

  West Midlands

  17

  891

  5,161

  East of England

  17

  858

  5,129

  London

  16

  1,143

  7,121

  South East

  16

  1,253

  7,943

  All England

  18

  8,987

  48,960

  Great Britain

  19

  10,542

  56,866

  Notes:

  Published data from the General Household Survey (Table 7.10 Living in Britain 2000).

  Weighted bases shown here differ slightly from the published table because the published table includes two other measures of self-reported sickness. Bases for each measure differ because of the varying number of "no answers" to each measure. In these instances, the smallest base only is shown.

  Percentages are based on data weighted to compensate for differential non response. The weighted figures give a grossed up population estimate.

  Figures for Scotland and Wales are included in the ranked list, an overall figure for England is given separately.

  Unemployment
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many young adults aged 16 to 24 years are unemployed by region expressed as(a) a percentage of population and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentage figures for the latest date available. [30594]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployed young adults. (30594)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of the number and percentage of people aged 15–24 years who are unemployed, as defined by the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
  362W
  The latest available estimates are for autumn (September to November) 2001. These are given in the table below.

  ILO unemployed people aged 16–24 by Government office region, autumn (September to November) 20011

  Percentage2

  Thousand

  UK

  8.9

  580

  Scotland

  11.0

  63

  London

  11.0

  97

  West Midlands

  10.9

  63

  North-east

  9.9

  29

  Wales

  9.2

  30

  North-west

  9.0

  68

  Eastern

  8.0

  43

  Northern Ireland

  7.8

  16

  South-west

  7.5

  37

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7.3

  41

  East Midlands

  7.3

  33

  South-east

  7.2

  59

  1Not seasonally adjusted

  2ILO unemployed people aged 16–24 as a percentage of all persons aged 16–24

  Source:

  ONS—Labour Force Survey

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households were without work for two years or more by region expressed as(a) a percentage and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentages for the latest date for which figures are available. [30590]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about households that have been without work for two years or more. (30590)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) household datasets provide estimates of working-age households that have been workless for two years or more: that is, households that include at least one person of working age where everyone has been without work for two years or more.
  The LFS household datasets are available for the spring (March to May) and autumn (September to November) quarters of each year. The latest available estimates are for spring (March to May) 2001. These are given in the table below.

  Working-age households without work for two years or more1,2,3by Government office region spring (March to May) 20014

  Percentage5

  Thousand

  UK

  11.0

  2,060

  Northern Ireland

  16.5

  84

  Wales

  16.2

  147

  North-east

  16.0

  131

  North-west

  13.5

  289

  Scotland

  12.7

  216

  London

  11.9

  287

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11.8

  190

  West Midlands

  11.2

  185

  East Midlands

  9.0

  119

  363W

  Working-age households without work for two years or more1,2,3by Government office region spring (March to May) 20014

  Percentage5

  Thousand

  South-west

  8.4

  128

  Eastern

  7.3

  126

  South-east

  6.4

  159

  1Households that include at least one person of working age (ie a man aged 16–64 or a woman aged 16–59) where everyone has been without work for two years or more.

  2Excludes households where everyone of working age is a full-time student.

  3Not adjusted for households with unknown economic activity

  4Not seasonally adjusted

  5Working-age households without work for two years or more as a percentage of all working-age households.

  Source:

  ONS—Labour Force Survey

  Household Insurance
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households were without household insurance, broken down by region, expressed as(a) a percentage and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentage figures for the latest year in which figures are available. [30612]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question about how many households were without insurance, by region, expressed as (a) a percentage and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentage figures for the latest year in which figures are available. (30612)
  Estimates of households with neither contents nor structural insurance are shown in the table below. They are from the Family Expenditure Surveys of 1999–2000 and 2000–01, combined to improve the reliability of the regional breakdowns.
  Like all estimates from sample surveys these figures are subject to sampling variability.

  Households without household insurance by Government office region and UK countries, 1999–2000 to 2000–01

  Percentages and numbers

  Households without structural or contents insurance

  Percentage

  Number (thousand)

  London

  33

  1,540

  Northern Ireland

  30

  330

  North-east

  29

  580

  North-west

  23

  1,440

  Wales

  22

  630

  Scotland

  21

  1,100

  West Midlands

  21

  1,090

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  20

  1,060

  South-east

  19

  1,750

  East Midlands

  17

  890

  South-west

  17

  1,040

  East

  16

  1,160

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, Family Exoebdutyre Surveys 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  Workless Households(Children)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children were living in workless households,364W
  by region, expressed (a) as a percentage of population and (b) the total number, in descending order according to percentage figures in 2000 [30608]

  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. Chris Ruane, dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about children in workless households. (30608)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) household datasets provide estimates of the number and percentage of children living in workless households; that is, households that include at least one person of working age with no one in employment.
  The estimates for spring (March to May) 2000 are given in the table below.

  Children1in workless households2,3by Government Office Region; spring (March to May 2000); not seasonally adjusted

  Per cent4

  Thousand

  United Kingdom

  16.0

  1,867

  London

  23.7

  353

  North East

  21.8

  115

  Northern Ireland

  20.1

  76

  Wales

  19.5

  116

  North West

  18.4

  261

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  18.0

  178

  Scotland

  16.7

  151

  West Midlands

  16.1

  170

  East Midlands

  12.4

  98

  East

  10.6

  111

  South West

  10.5

  96

  South East

  9.2

  143

  1Children refers to all children under 16.

  2Households that include at least one person of working age (i.e. a man aged 16–64 or a woman aged 16–59) where no one is in employment.

  3Not adjusted for households with unknown economic activity.

  4Children in workless households as a percentage of all children in working-age households.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Suicides
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many suicides there were by young people aged 15 to 24 years by sex and by region expressed as(a) percentage figures and (b) total number, ranked in descending order of totals, expressed in percentage terms for the latest year in which figures are available. [30596]

  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. Chris Ruane, dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the number of suicides by young people aged 15–24 years by sex and by region in (a) percentage figures and (b) total number, ranked in descending order of totals, expressed in percentage terms for the latest year for which figures are available. (30596)
  365W
  The figures requested are given in the attached tables.

  Deaths from suicide1in the age group 15–24, males by Government Office Region, England2, 20003

  Number and rate per 100,000 population4

  Government Office Region

  Number of deaths

  Rate per 100,000 males aged 15–24

  West Midlands

  53

  16.0

  East Midlands

  40

  15.5

  NorthWest

  64

  15.0

  SouthWest

  39

  13.5

  East

  37

  12.0

  North East

  19

  11.4

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  33

  10.1

  South East

  46

  9.8

  London

  39

  7.7

  Deaths from suicide1in the age group 15–24, females by Government Office Region, England2, 20003

  Number and rate per 100,000 population4

  Government Office Region

  Number of deaths

  Rate per 100,000 females aged 15–24

  South West

  14

  5.2

  South East

  22

  4.9

  West Midlands

  13

  4.2

  North East

  6

  3.8

  North West

  15

  3.7

  East

  8

  2.8

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  8

  2.6

  London

  11

  2.3

  East Midlands

  3

  1.2

  1International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes E950-E959 and E980-E989 excluding E988.8.

  2Residents only.

  3Data are for occurrences of death per calendar year.

  4To facilitate comparison between areas the figures are presented as a rate per 100,000 population resident in the area, rather than as a percentage, because of small numbers of events.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Pensioners (Telephones)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioners do not have a telephone, broken down by region expressed as(a) a percentage and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentage figures for the latest year in which figures are available. [30587]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on numbers of pensioners that do not have a phone by region. (30587)
  Estimates of pensioner households without a telephone by region are shown in the attached table. They are from the three most recent years of the Family Expenditure Survey, 1998–99 to 2000–01, combined to improve the reliability of the regional breakdowns of this group. Pensioner households have been defined as those with a retired head.
  Like all estimates from sample surveys these figures are subject to sampling variability. This is greater for estimates of a sub-group such as pensioner households than for all households.
  366W

  Pensioner households without telephone by Government office region and UK countries: 1998–99 to 2000–01

  Households without telephone

  Percentage

  Number (Thousand)

  North East

  7

  18

  Northern Ireland

  6

  8

  East Midlands

  5

  17

  North West

  4

  28

  Scotland

  4

  21

  West Midlands

  4

  19

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  4

  16

  South West

  3

  16

  East

  3

  17

  Wales

  3

  8

  London

  2

  14

  South East

  2

  17

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, Family Expenditure Surveys 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  Young Adults
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many young adults there are aged 16 to 18 years who are not in education, training or work by region, expressed as(a) a percentage of the population and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentage figures for the latest date available. [30598]

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

  Letter for Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about young adults who are not in education, training or employment. (30598)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of the number and percentage of people aged 16–18 years who are not in education, training or employment. The latest available estimates are for autumn (September to November) 2001. These are given in the table below.

  People aged 16–18 who are not in education, training or work by Government Office Region Autumn (September to November) 2001 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Percentage1

  Thousand

  UK

  12.0

  264

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  16.3

  32

  Scotland

  15.2

  30

  North West

  14.0

  39

  Wales

  13.8

  15

  North East

  13.3

  13

  London

  12.5

  29

  West Midlands

  12.3

  26

  South East

  11.0

  31

  Eastern

  9.3

  18

  East Midlands

  9.3

  l4

  South West

  7.0

  12

  Northern Ireland

  2—

  2—

  1Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  2People aged 16–18 who are not in education, training or work as a percentage of all persons aged 16–18.

  Source:

  ONS—Labour Force Survey.

  Babies
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many low birthweight babies there were by region
  367W
  by (a) percentage of population and (b) total number, in descending order in the year when figures were last available [30604]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 30 January 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many low birthweight babies there were by region by (a) percentage of population and (b) total number, in descending order, in the most recent year for which figures are available. (30604)
  The figures requested are given in the table below.

  Low birthweight babies1by Government Office Region, England 2, 20003

  Government Office Region

  Number of low birthweight babies

  Percentage of all live births

  West Midlands

  5,156

  8.4

  London

  8,506

  8.2

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  4,505

  8.1

  North West

  6,020

  7.9

  East Midlands

  3,568

  7.8

  North East

  2,053

  7.8

  East

  4,153

  6.8

  South East

  6,090

  6.7

  South West

  3,301

  6.6

  1Population at risk is taken to be the total number of live births with a stated birthweight, and is used to calculate the percentage of low birthweight babies (ie under 2,500 grams).

  2Residents only.

  3Data are for occurrences of births per calendar year.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Inland Revenue
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average turnover of companies with limited status in the UK, as reported to the Inland Revenue, in the last year for which figures are available. [31551]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of the average turnover of companies from information held centrally by the Inland Revenue. However, relevant information on the numbers and turnover of companies and public corporations can be found in Table 6 of the Department of Trade and Industry Small Business Service publication "Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Statistics for the UK 2000" which is located at: www.sbs.gov.uk/content/statistics/stats2000.pdf.

  London Weighting
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent on London weighting in the public sector in the 2001–02 financial year. [31390]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We do not keep this information centrally. The payment of London weighting is a matter for individual public sector employers.

  Public Sector Pay
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent on regional 368W
  allowances to supplement public sector pay in the south-east, excluding London, in the 2001–02 financial year [31391]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We do not keep this information centrally. The payment of regional allowances is a matter for individual public sector employers.

  Regional Allowances
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total expenditure on public sector pay is taken up by regional allowances [31389]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We do not keep this information centrally. The payment of regional allowances is a matter for individual public sector employers.

  Limited Companies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average profitability of companies with limited status in the UK, as reported to the Inland Revenue, in the last year for which figures are available. [31552]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to measure average company profitability from the tax assessment information which the Inland Revenue holds centrally. But figures on the profitability of UK companies for the third quarter of 2001 from the latest National Statistics press release can be found at www.statistics.gov.uk/ pdfdir/puc0102.pdf

  Euro
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 438W, on the euro, for what reason he was not able to indicate the number of officials involved in the preliminary technical work for euro preparations; and if he will make a statement. [30881]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him yesterday.

  Building Programme
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Government Departments operate a system of retention in their building programme. [30572]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury does not collect data on which Departments do or do not operate a system of retention in their building programmes. This is a matter for individual Government Departments.

  The Achieving Excellence in Construction initiative, led by the Office of Government Commerce, is placing greater emphasis on team working and value for money procurement strategies and is encouraging central Government construction clients to use partnering and long-term commercial agreements with suppliers to reduce the need for retentions in the future.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham of 19 November 2001,Official Report, columns 143–44W, on meetings regarding Railtrack,

  369W
  under what section of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information he did not provide the information requested. [32086]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 520W.

  Credit Institutions
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which amendments to UK law(a) have been made and (b) are necessary to comply with Directive 2001/24/EC of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions; and if he will make a statement. [31717]

  Ruth Kelly
  The task of identifying all the relevant provisions of UK law that require amendment, in order to implement the directive by May 2004, has not yet been completed. In the circumstances, no amendments to UK law have been made so far.

  KPMG
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contracts his Department has with KPMG; and what the value is of each one. [31320]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has no current contracts with KPMG.

  Large-scale Projects
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the instruments available for the financing of large-scale projects where returns are unlikely to be made within at least a decade. [30977]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The criterion for assessing the effectiveness of investment in projects is whether value for money is secured. The Treasury's guidance on project appraisal—the "Green Book"—is aimed to help Departments achieve this objective. Departments have set out their investment plans in "Departmental Investment Strategies" published in July 2000.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to press for the establishment of a differential rate for VAT for repairs and renovations to listed buildings in the European Commission review of reduced rates of VAT. [30782]

  Mr. Boateng
  EC law already allows a reduced rate of VAT for works to housing. It does not permit a reduced rate for works to other types of building, whether listed or not. However, in response to representations made by the Government, the European Commission has indicated that it will consider a reduced rate of VAT for listed places of worship in their general review of the reduced rates, which is due to take place in 2003.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent studies his Department has undertaken of the management costs of PPPs relative to conventionally procured public sector projects. [27857]
  370W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is the responsibility of Departments to account for the management of their programmes and projects. However the Treasury has instituted a number of reforms since 1997 to improve acquisition of services through all forms of procurement, notably through setting up the Office of Government Commerce. In the area of PFI, the reforms following the two Bates reports, including guidance on standard contract terms and conditions and the establishment of Partnerships UK, together with experience gained in both public and private sectors, are believed to have resulted in reduced procurement costs.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the value of public sector capital expenditure, including capital grants to the private sector, as a proportion of GDP in each of the last four years. [26112]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Figures for public sector net capital expenditure as a proportion of GDP are given in Table B23 on page 195 of the November 2001 pre-Budget report (Cm 5318).

  Customs Officials
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Customs officials have been based at Newhaven in each year from 1987 to date. [25455]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: Increased flexibility, mobility and use of information technology means that numbers of Customs staff based at a location is not a valid indicator of Customs activity.

  Precise figures for each year are not available following a series of structural changes and variations in the way in which levels of resource deployed are measured.

  Estimated figures for Newhaven

  Year

  Estimated staff

  1990

  124

  1993

  82

  1995

  60

  1999

  45

  2000

  30

  2001

  26

  2002

  15

  Duty Free Allowance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to raise the per person duty free allowance on gifts and other goods purchased in non-EU countries and then brought to the UK. [31132]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: The duty free allowances are set out in Council directive 69/169/EEC. Member states revalorise the monetary limit on goods, depending on shifts in the value of the euro. There is no case for a review at this time.
  371W

  Customs and Excise (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been recruited to work within Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years. [23565]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is given by financial year.

  Year

  Number

  20011

  74

  2000–01

  108

  1999–2000

  11

  1999–98

  8

  1997–98

  34

  1996–97

  40

  1April to date

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been promoted in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; and how many years each person promoted had(a) served at their previous grade and (b) worked in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. [23564]

  Mr. Boateng
  211 promotions and regradings with enhanced responsibilities took place in Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland between 1997 and 2001. In some instances staff were promoted or regraded more than once.

  In accordance with Exemption 8 of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", it would be inappropriate to provide the analysis sought of promotees previous service as this information would enable members of staff to be identified.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ian Stillman
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations his Department has made concerning the continued imprisonment of Ian Stillman in India; and if he will make a statement. [29473]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Ian Stillman was arrested on 28 August 2000, alleged to be in possession of 20 kg and 300 g of cannabis resin. On 2 June 2001 he was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.

  Mr. Stillman appealed against this conviction at the High Court, but on 11 January this appeal was turned down. It is for Mr. Stillman's lawyers to appeal to the Supreme Court. We understand that no decision as to whether to appeal to the Supreme Court has yet been made by Mr. Stillman's lawyers.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and British high commission in New Delhi have made many high-level representations to the Indian authorities regarding Mr. Stillman. The most recent of these was a meeting between the British high commissioner in New Delhi and the Indian Home Minister on 2 January 2002. This case has also been raised at various times by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. We will continue to raise the case at appropriate opportunities if Mr. Stillman
  372W
  decides to appeal to the Supreme Court. We will also continue to monitor his welfare while in jail and ensure that his special needs are catered for.

  War Against Terrorism
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on extending the war against terrorism to countries other than Afghanistan. [30029]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our aim is to eliminate the global threat posed by al-Qaeda and other international terrorist groups. We will take the action we deem necessary in support of this objective. We are working in a number of fora, including the UN, the EU, G8, NATO and the Commonwealth, to ensure an appropriate international response to the threat of terrorism. We are also stepping up our support to countries which oppose terrorist activity, but lack the means to prevent it.

  Guantanamo Base
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who comprises the British team visiting British citizens who are being held by the US at the Guantanamo base in Cuba. [29801]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The British team consisted of officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Security Service. Under Exemptions la and 15 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, I am unable to publish the names of the officials.

  Afghanistan
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what consulting assistance the UK is providing to the interim Afghanistan Government in implementing democratic processes. [30271]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government fully support the Bonn agreement and its aim to establish a broadly based, representative and democratic government in Afghanistan. We have pledged approximately £2 million in immediate assistance to the Afghan Interim Administration to support them in their efforts to implement the democratic processes outlined in the agreement.

  The UN-led political process is central to this effort. We have also given £1 million in assistance to support the office of the UN Secretary General's Special Representative in Afghanistan, Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Government initiated the current round of talks on the future status of Gibraltar under the terms of the Brussels Process. [30620]

  Peter Hain
  The Brussels Process was established in 1984 by the Government of Lady Thatcher. During the debate on the Queen's Speech on 22 June 2001,Official Report, column 284, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announced the continuation of the Brussels Process.
  373W
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place with Spain on air safety on flights to Gibraltar. [30724]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: We have had regular discussions with the Spanish Government on a range of issues under the Brussels Process, including aviation security.

  I also refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 1 November 2001, Official Report, column 811W.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the creation of a joint Anglo/Spanish body with responsibility for(a) judicial issues concerning Gibraltar and (b) issues concerning the defence of Gibraltar are being discussed under the Brussels Process of talks regarding the future of Gibraltar. [30867]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 6 November 2001, Official Report, column 122W.

  Pakistan
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the staffing levels in the British Consulate offices in Pakistan will be returned to the levels which existed prior to 11 September 2001; and if he will make a statement. [30393]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Staffing at the British high commission in Islamabad, the Deputy high commission in Karachi and the British high commission visa and consular office in Lahore has almost returned to the levels prior to 11 September. There are, however, three entry clearance vacancies in Islamabad and Karachi and two in Lahore. We are endeavouring to fill these vacancies as soon as possible. As from 7 January all three posts have been operating a staged return to normal service. Islamabad and Lahore are expected to resume a full service on 4 February and Karachi shortly thereafter.

  The number of staff providing consular assistance has remained the same since 11 September.

  Colombia
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the links between the Colombian army and paramilitary organisations in Colombia; what recent discussions he has had with the US Administration about these links; what support the UK Government give to(a) Colombia and (b) Plan Colombia; whether such support is conditional on the termination of links between the authorities and paramilitaries; and if he will make a statement. [31256]

  Mr. MacShane
  Allegations of collusion between the Colombian army and the paramilitaries remain a serious concern and recent reports by the United Nations and human rights groups have been critical of the Colombian Government's failure to tackle the problem effectively. In January 2001, the Colombian Government set up a financial task force to investigate, seize and disrupt the funding of paramilitary groups, and a special military unit 374W
  was created to tackle them. But much remains to be done; laws need to be implemented, weak institutions strengthened, alleged military-paramilitary links investigated and, where proven to exist, terminated.

  We continue to have extensive discussions with the US Administration about developments in Colombia, including the paramilitary problem. The US designated the main Colombian paramilitary organisation, the United Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC), as a terrorist organisation in September last year. In November, HM Treasury, in co-ordination with US authorities, circulated a list of 25 terrorist organisations (including the AUC) to financial institutions requiring that their assets be frozen.

  The UK assists Colombia both bilaterally and via the EU and the UN. The EU aid package for Colombia to which the UK is contributing will support human rights and social and economic measures, including alternative development. I announced a further bilateral contribution of £120,000 to the UN Human Rights Office in Bogota; on 23 January. Britain has also provided training for Colombia's anti-narcotic police and customs officers. The UK has made no financial contribution to Plan Colombia, either bilaterally or via the EU.

  Neither the UK nor the EU has tied its aid to specific conditions. Cutting off aid would only hurt the poorest and most vulnerable communities in Colombia.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the USA to encourage them to accede to the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court. [31264]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not had occasion to discuss this issue recently with members of the US Administration. However, it is frequently discussed between officials and has been the subject of EU presidency demarches in Washington on 30 October and 20 December 2001, in pursuance of the EU Common Position on the ICC.

  European Union Business
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for February and (b) the major European Union events for the period between 31 February and July. [32266]

  Peter Hain
  The following is the information:12 February—ECOFIN meeting—Brussels

  1.Adoption of Agenda

  2.Approval of list of "A" items

  3.Preparation for the European Council in Barcelona Commission report on the functioning of product and capital markets (cardiff report)

  (poss.) Report on increasing employment levels and prolonging working life

  Broad economic policy guidelines

  =policy debate (on basis of, among other things, the Commission's summary report and contributions from other Councils)

  4.Stability and growth pact
  Examination of updated stability and convergence programmes
  375W
  5.(poss.) Update on the euro changeover

  6.Commission report on globalisation: challenges and responses

  7.Indirect taxation

  VAT: Electronic commerce

  8.Progress report on the procedures for the ratification of the Council Decision of 29 September 2000 on the system of own resources (OJ L 253,7.10.2000, p42)

  9.Other business

  6/7—Valladolid—Ministerial Seminar on Democracy and Development

  9/10—Brussels—Gymnich (Ministerial Informal)

  11—Brussels—Eurogroup (Evening)

  14—Brussels—Education and Youth Council

  March

  Venue

  Event

  1

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Evening)

  1

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council

  4

  Brussels

  Eurogroup (Evening)

  4

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  5

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  7

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Affairs Council

  11

  Brussels

  Research Council

  11–12

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  15–16

  Barcelona

  European Council

  18

  Toledo

  Trade Ministers Meeting (Ministerial Informal)

  18

  Toledo

  EUROMED Trade Ministers Meeting

  18–19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  23–24

  Brussels

  Defence Ministers Meeting (Ministerial Informal)

  25–26

  Brussels

  Transport and Telecom Council

  27–28

  Monterrey, Mexico

  Financing and Development Conference

  April

  5–6

  Luxembourg

  Migrations Council (ASEM Ministerial Informal)

  8

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  13–14

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN (Ministerial Informal)

  15–16

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  22–23

  Valencia

  Euromed Conference

  22–23

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  May

  25–26

  Luxembourg

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  27–30

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council (Ministerial Informal)

  3–4

  Brussels

  Tourism Council (Ministerial Informal)

  6

  Brussels

  Eurogroup (Evening)

  7

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  9

  Europe Day

  13

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council and Defence Ministers meeting

  17–18

  Madrid

  EU-Latin America and Caribbean Summit

  21

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council

  23

  Brussels

  Culture and Audio-visual Council

  24–26

  Brussels

  Environment Council (Ministerial Informal)

  27–28

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  30

  Brussels

  Development Council

  30

  Brussels

  Education and Youth Council

  31–1 June

  Brussels

  Transport Council (Ministerial Informal)

  June

  3

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Affairs Council

  3

  Brussels

  Eurogroup (Evening)

  4

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  6–8

  Brussels

  Foreign Affairs Council (ASEM Ministers)

  6–7

  Brussels

  Industry and Energy Council

  10–11

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  10–11

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  11

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  June

  13–14

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  Transport and Telecoms Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  21–22

  Seville

  European Council

  24

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council (possible)

  24–25

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  376W
  14/15—Brussels—Justice and Home Affairs Council (Ministerial Informal)

  18/19—Brussels—General Affairs Council

  18/19—Brussels—Agriculture Council

  22/23—Brussels—Telecoms and Information Society Council (Ministerial Informal)

  28—Brussels—Justice and Home Affairs Council

  28—Brussels—Inaugural meeting of the Convention on the Future of Europe.

  The following are the principal events in the EU between 1 March and July 2002 (certain relevant events are also included: the list is based on the information available at the date of issue).
  377W

  March

  Venue

  Event

  25

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  26

  Brussels

  Health Council

  July

  6

  Copenhagen

  ASEM Ministers for Finance

  12

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  12–13

  Kolding

  Meeting of Employment and Social Policy Ministers (Informal)

  15–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19

  Brussels

  Budget Meeting

  19–21

  Arhus

  Environment Ministers meeting (Informal)

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  Special Operations Executive
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what continuing role there will be for the Special Operations Executive Adviser on the transfer of the remaining SOE files to the Public Record Office. [32267]

  Mr. Straw
  The process involved in the final stages of preparing the SOE personal files for release to the PRO mean that it is no longer practicable for the SOE adviser to deal satisfactorily with inquiries relating to those files.

  There being no further series of files for review and release, the SOE adviser will cease to have a function. From 15 February 2002, therefore, no further inquiries will be accepted by his office, which itself will close on 31 March 2002. With the transfer of the remaining personal files at the end of the year, public inquiries for access should be directed to the PRO.

  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to release more records of the wartime Special Operations Executive. [32268]

  Mr. Straw
  The records of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) have been released progressively since 1993. The next batch of records, covering the General and Headquarters (including America) files, has been transferred to the Public Records Office, and will be opened on 8 February 2002. The last batch of SOE records (the personal files) should be transferred around the end of 2002.

  Arms Exports (Azerbaijan)
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom will continue to uphold the OSCE embargo on the export of weapons and military equipment to Azerbaijan. [32269]

  Peter Hain
  The UK remains committed to the OSCE arms embargo against both Azerbaijan and Armenia, which the UK interprets as covering all goods and technology controlled under entries in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (commonly known as the military list).

  In March 2000 the Government approved a similar request for protective jackets for demining operations to Azerbaijan, a continuing problem.

  While the grant of this licence constitutes an exception to the UK's interpretation of the scope of the embargo, it is in no way inconsistent with the purpose of the embargo and our continuing commitment to uphold it.
  378W

  Georgia
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of Georgia regarding political development in that country; and if he will make a statement. [28890]

  Mr. Straw
  The last ministerial contacts were at the OSCE Ministerial meeting in Bucharest on 3 and 4 December when the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. McShane) met the Georgian Foreign Minister; the Minister for Europe also met the Foreign Minister in London on 12 September.

  A senior FCO official visited Georgia from 22 to 24 January and held discussions on a wide range of issues with the Georgian Government. The Deputy Foreign Minister is coming to London for Political/Military discussions on 6 and 7 February. We will continue to support democracy and development in Georgia and assist the Georgian Government to build on the reforms they have stated.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the compliance by the Zimbabwe Government with the Abuja Agreement. [31601]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Abuja text sets out clear benchmarks on the rule of law, ending political violence and intimidation and promoting basic human rights. The Government of Zimbabwe has paid scant regard to the commitments.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  "Your Guide"
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the trial of "Your Guide" in post offices in Leicestershire will continue after the end of March. [25909]

  Mr. Wilson
  The six month pilot continues to schedule and will be withdrawn as planned on 1 March 2002. This allows complete focus on the detailed evaluation report and business case which will determine whether the service will be rolled out nationally. Work is already under way to plan for national roll-out so that in the event of a successful outcome rapid progress can be made.
  379W
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initial assessment she has made of the trial of "Your Guide" in post offices in Leicestershire since October 2001. [25908]

  Mr. Wilson
  No formal assessment has yet been made of the trial. The outcome of the pilot will be fully evaluated by the Post Office, by those organisations participating in the pilot, and by the Government participating as a whole. The pilot ends on 1 March. The full evaluation report is expected in June.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what publicity has been given to the trial of "Your Guide" in post offices in Leicestershire since October 2001. [25907]

  Mr. Wilson
  Operational management of the pilot project is a matter for Post Office Limited. I understand that since its inception in August 2001, the trial has been publicised by means of paid advertisements and editorial features in the local newspapers and radio. Leaflets have been distributed through a variety of channels including doctors surgeries and social security offices and presentations have been made to a variety of local groups. The publicity has continued since October 2001 with material adapted to include case studies and quotations from users of the service. A leaflet drop directly to households is planned for later in January.

  Terrorist Attacks
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions since 11 September she has met the Director of the Office of Civil Nuclear Security to discuss the readiness of nuclear installations against attack. [28493]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. I have considered advice, including advice from the Director of Civil Nuclear Security, on the security of civil nuclear installations in the light of the events of 11 September.

  BAE
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what outstanding financial commitments BAE has to Government agencies. [28657]

  Mr. Wilson
  All previous Launch Investment contracts with BAE Systems have been transferred to Airbus UK. These contracts provide for the repayment of Launch Investment with a rate of return in the form of levies on sales of the products developed. BAES no longer has such commitments to the Department of Trade and Industry. Comprehensive information on BAE Systems' outstanding commitments to the Government cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Arms Sales
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from BAE Systems concerning the sale of arms to(a) South Africa and (b) India. [28292]

  Mr. Wilson
  The promotion of any legitimate UK defence exports, in co-ordination with industry, is the responsibility of the Defence Export Services Organisation of the Ministry of Defence.
  380W

  Electricity Generation
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evidence she has collated on the impact on conversion efficiency of generation of electricity on a small localised scale. [29493]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department publishes conversion efficiencies for power stations operated by major power producers in Table 5.9 of the Digest of UK Energy Statistics. Efficiencies of CHP systems are given in Table 6A of the Digest and electrical efficiencies within CHP systems can be calculated from the data in Table 6.8. Conversion efficiencies of electricity from biofuels, onshore wind and hydro can be calculated from data given in Chapter 7; by convention, energy inputs to wind and hydro are equivalent to the electricity produced.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average cost is per kilo-watt hour of(a) onshore wind, (b) gas-fired, (c) nuclear and (d) hydro-electric-generated electricity. [30314]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The Department published estimates of the cost of gas-fired generation in the 1998 White Paper (Cm 4071, paragraph 5.38).

  The last study of nuclear costs was published in 1995 and indicated that generation costs would be around 3.9p/kWh. Since then nuclear generators have produced generation cost estimates for new designs of around 2.6p/kWh.

  Estimates of the cost of renewables technologies are contained in a report by the Energy Technology Support Unit (New and Renewables Energy Prospects in the 21stCentury: Supporting Analysis) published in March 1999. This report is available in the Library of the House.

  The Department has also contributed to the work of the energy review being undertaken by the Performance and Innovation Unit at the Cabinet Office, which has looked at the cost of new nuclear generation. A copy of their paper which covers estimates for a range of generation technologies (including onshore wind) can be found at: http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uldinnovation/2001/energy/ 2050.pdf.

  The full PIU report is expected to be published shortly.

  BNFL Inc 1998 Annual Report
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place copies of BNFL Inc's 1998 annual report in the Library. [29395]

  Mr. Wilson
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 20 November 2001,Official Report, columns 163–64W.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many nuclear power stations are to be(a) constructed, (b) modernised and (c) closed under the Energy Review. [28016]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The Energy Review team has now completed its work and I submitted the PIU report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the end of December. It is for Ministers

  381W
  collectively to determine next steps on the report, including publication arrangements. It would not be appropriate to speculate on the content of the report in advance of publication.

  Energy Providers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about energy providers poaching domestic customers from other companies; and if she will make a statement. [29755]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have received a large number of representations about domestic gas and electricity competition. A competitive market requires consumers to have access to offers from a number of suppliers, to be able to compare those offers and to be able to transfer between suppliers to make financial savings or gain improved service. It is also entirely legitimate that suppliers should promote their offers. The vast majority of contracts between suppliers and consumers are carried out in an appropriate manner, to the advantage of both. Since competition was fully introduced 14 million customers have benefited from greater choice and reduced energy prices by switching suppliers, and new entrants have been able to join the market.

  It is important that consumers have confidence in the competitive market, and that problems that serve to weaken that market and cause distress to consumers be addressed. The problems raised in the representations made to me chiefly surround the erroneous transfer of gas and electricity supply, whether by administrative or data error or dishonest sales practice. It is the responsibility of the industry regulator, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem), to oversee competition as a whole, and to monitor and address suppliers' performance and compliance with the range of statutory and regulatory instruments.

  To reduce erroneous transfers, Ofgem and the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council— Energywatch— have developed the Erroneous Transfer Customer Charter. All domestic gas and electricity suppliers have accepted this charter, which came into force on 1 January. The charter should ensure that consumers transferred in error are restored to their original supplier swiftly, and with the minimum of inconvenience. Ofgem will review the industry's response to the charter in August 2002. If it feels that the response has been inadequate, or that insufficient progress has been made, it will consider the use of regulatory measures. These include the imposition of standards of performance (which can carry requirements for automatic compensation) and the modification of supply licence conditions. Ofgem will shortly also have the powers to levy financial penalties on companies for breach of licence conditions.

  In addition, in November 2001, I wrote to all gas and electricity suppliers to express my support for the charter, and to stress the need for all suppliers to eradicate sales malpractices, which cause distress and inconvenience to consumers and bring the competitive market into disrepute. I made it clear that, if the problems surrounding sales malpractices were not dealt with, we would have to look again at how best consumers could he protected.
  382W

  Overhead Transmission Lines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she has taken to curb the number of overhead transmission lines that have been planned for the future. [30143]

  Mr. Wilson
  The National Grid company has a duty to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity transmission. It is a matter for that company what proposals it brings forward. These applications are then considered by the Department in the section 37 procedure and decisions reached on them.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she has taken to ensure that National Grid abides by the relevant planning conditions when erecting pylons for the Lackenby to Shipton overhead transmission lines, with particular reference to access to land in dry conditions. [30142]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is a matter for the relevant local planning authorities to enforce the planning conditions applied to the North Yorkshire power line. However, where there is doubt over the interpretation of a condition the Department has been willing to provide clarification.

  Miscarriage
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of recent research by the National Radiological Protection Board on the relationship between magnetic fields and the risk of miscarriage. [30192]

  Mr. Wilson
  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has not recently conducted specific research into any possible relationship between magnetic fields and the risk of miscarriage.

  Two papers have, however, been published in the January 2002 journal Epidemiology by authors funded by the California Department of Health Services. Both papers purport to show an epidemiological association between magnetic fields and the risk of miscarriage and have attracted some media attention.

  One leading American epidemiologist has, in an editorial in the same journal, already questioned the papers' findings and the possible influence of confounding factors.

  The conclusions of the papers are also contrary to the findings of an expert Standing Committee of the International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, who thoroughly reviewed the published epidemiological literature on electric and magnetic fields and health over the last three decades. Their review was published in December 2001.

  The NRPB's Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) will be looking at these papers during the coming weeks and will report its views.

  End of Life Vehicles Directive
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with other EU member states regarding the implementation of the end of life vehicles directive. [30149]
  383W
  Mr. Wilson
  None within the past few months. Officials are, however, monitoring other member states' implementation plans, to ensure that our own transposition and implementation of the directive do not place UK businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on recent progress of negotiations on the implementation of proposed European legislation on vehicle recycling. [30224]

  Mr. Wilson
  116 responses were received to the DTI's consultation paper on options for implementing the end of life vehicles directive and these are now being assessed, along with the recommendations and conclusions of the recent Trade and Industry Committee report, to help the Government decide on the best means of transposition and implementation of the directive. We are committed to achieving the important environmental objectives of the directive at least cost, and without putting UK business at a competitive disadvantage.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times the ministerial group on manufacturing job losses has met since 21 December 2000. [30129]

  Mr. Wilson
  There is no ministerial group such as the hon. Member assumes. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 16 January 2001,Official Report, columns 218–19W, to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice the Manufacturing Advisory Service is offering to firms in respect of the climate change levy. [30146]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Manufacturing Advisory Service (MAS) is being set up to help increase the competitiveness of UK manufacturing (especially SMEs), by the transfer of knowledge, new technologies, best practice methods and processes, and facilitating innovative training, education and skills development. Although the MAS will not offer specific advice on the climate change levy (CCL), it will encourage manufacturers to look at the efficiency and cost effectiveness of their energy usage and be able to signpost businesses to the relevant organisations for this. HM Customs and Excise provides advice on administrative arrangements for the CCL; the Carbon Trust will provide advice through the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme which will cover information on cost-effective, low carbon technologies and other measures, including information on the enhanced capital allowances scheme for investments in energy saving technologies; while the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) handles the climate change agreements including advice on eligibility for these.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the impact of the climate change levy upon the manufacturing sector. [30153]
  384W
  Mr. Wilson
  The climate change levy is an environmental protection measure designed to avoid damaging the competitiveness of UK manufacturing. The levy's impact on individual manufacturing businesses will depend on the extent to which they take advantage of the various levy exemptions, the new scheme of enhanced capital allowances for energy efficiency, and energy support from the new Carbon Trust; and whether their sites qualify for a discount from the levy. Eligible sites in energy intensive industries are receiving an 80 per cent. levy discount where they have committed to challenging energy saving targets in negotiated agreements with the Government.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what recent representations she has received from British industry regarding the climate change levy; [30152]

  (2) what recent representations she has received from the manufacturing sector regarding the climate change levy. [30166]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has received a number of representations from business about the climate change levy.

  The Government are keeping in touch with business on the levy to monitor initial experience with its operation. Primary responsibility for the levy lies with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the Exchequer.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the amount of energy generated from waste incineration in the Buckingham constituency in each of the last five years. [30042]

  Mr. Wilson
  Statistics of energy generation from renewables and wastes are not available at a level below that of Government office region, but I am not aware of any waste incineration facility within the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

  Respiratory Diseases Claimants
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) interim and (b) final payments were made between (i) 1 January and 1 July 2001 and (ii) 2 July 2001 and 1 January 2002 to respiratory diseases claimants in St. Helens, South. [29832]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have made the following payments in the St. Helens, South constituency in relation to compensation for respiratory disease. In total the Department has paid over £819,000 in this region to date.

  Number of interim payments

  Number of full and final payments

  Period 1

  1 January to 1 July 2001

  32

  9

  Period 2

  2 July 2001 and 1 January 2002

  32

  17

  385W

  Nanotechnology
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the status is of the Department's research into nanotechnology. [30331]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has put in place an initiative to establish a national strategy for nanotechnology.

  An advisory group on nanotechnology, comprising experts from industry and academia and chaired by the Director General of Research Councils, Dr. John Taylor, has been established to advise on the actions needed to ensure that the UK is well positioned to exploit the nanotechnology revolution. A report commissioned by the advisory group on the opportunities for the UK is due to be published in the near future. Copies will be placed in the House Library.

  The Government are already making a significant investment in nanotechnology research and exploitation. As part of this, DTI is providing £7.2 million over three years to support a University Innovation Centre (UIC) in Microsystems and Nanotechnology in the north-east of England.

  Glass Industry
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on European legislation affecting the glass industry. [30226]

  Mr. Wilson
  The glass and glazing industry covers a wide spectrum of DTI interests ranging from glass tableware to construction materials. The Government therefore consider each proposed item of European legislation and the transposition and implementation of adopted EU legislation on its merits and consults widely with interested parties. Legislation and regulations are implemented with a light touch and in a way that maintains a broadly level playing field with other member states. The Government are particularly concerned that extra costs should not be loaded onto UK businesses.

  Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Power Stations
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the capability is for holding stocks of back-up fuels at each of the combined cycle gas turbine power stations commissioned since 1990 in days of use at full levels of generation. [30195]

  Mr. Wilson
  We do not keep such statistics. It is for the owners of those power stations to ensure adequate stocks of back-up fuels to meet their contractual and contingency liabilities.

  Energy Contingency Planning
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 109W, on energy contingency planning, if she will give details of (a) the contingency plans developed by the Gas Industry Emergency Committee and (b) the recent exercises, and their impacts on (i) gas and (ii) electricity customers. [30284]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Gas Industry Emergency Committee's work is not yet finished but I shall ensure that copies of the plans are placed in the Libraries of the 386W
  House as soon as they are ready. I hope this will be in early April. The plans will supplement existing and well rehearsed emergency arrangements including Transco's Network Gas Supply Emergency Procedures. Copies of Transco's plans are already held in the Libraries of the House.

  GIEC's aim is to dovetail those existing plans with wider Government and regulatory emergency powers and procedures to protect, as far as is possible, consumers from supply failures, and, should consumers be affected, to ensure that all available support is delivered speedily and effectively.

  There have been two major exercises carried out in the last four months. The first was part of a regular test carried out under the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations. It was organised by the Health and Safety Executive. Among other things it tested the links between Transco, the Department for Trade and Industry and the National Grid Company (managers of the high-voltage electricity transmission system). It gave us a greater understanding of how the gas and electricity systems and markets would operate in an emergency.

  The second exercise was broader and looked at the communications and roles and responsibilities across Government and other agencies (including the police and local authorities) in the event of terrorist action.

  The results of both these exercises are being taken into account, not just in the development of the gas plans, but also in other emergency procedures, including those for electricity.

  Mineworkers' Pensions
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners in Barnsley, East and Mexborough on low mineworkers' pensions will benefit from the one-off lump sum payments she recently announced. [R] [30523]

  Mr. Wilson
  This information is not kept on a constituency basis and can be identified only at a disproportionate cost.

  However, we estimate around 15,000 members in Yorkshire will benefit from this one-off lump sum payment, including those living in my hon. Friend's constituency of Barnsley, East and Mexborough.

  Retail Petrol Stations
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many retail petrol stations closed in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [30216]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The Institute of Petroleum's (IP) annual "UK Retail Marketing Survey" (last published in March 2001) provides data on the total number of petrol retail outlets in operation in the UK.

  The table, using the IP data, shows the number of petrol retail outlets in operation in the UK at the end of 1998, 1999 and 2000. The data for the end of 2001 will not be published until March of this year.
  387W

  Number

  1998

  13,758

  1999

  13,716

  2000

  13,043

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the target time is for a miner's compensation cheque(a) to be sent to a claimant after he has accepted an offer and (b) to be paid following the acceptance of an offer being met. [30332]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Handling agreement for compensation for respiratory disease specifies that a payment is made to the claimant's solicitor within 14 days of acceptance of an offer. In relation to vibration white finger, VWF, a payment should be made within 42 days. However, offers of compensation are usually paid by IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, within 10 days of receiving confirmation from a claimant's solicitor that their client's offer is being accepted. This is subject to IRISC being in receipt of the correct documentation, such as Grant of Probate in deceased cases.

  Payment by the claimant's solicitor to the claimant is not specified in the Handling agreement. The Department's opinion is that payment should be made as soon as a cheque has been received.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was paid by the Government from January to December 2001 in(a) Wales and (b) England, pursuant to the Miners' Compensation Scheme as (i) damages to claimants, (ii) legal costs for claimants' lawyers and (iii) medical costs incurred by the claimants. [30740]

  Mr. Wilson
  Between January and December 2001 the Department has paid out £392.7 million to respiratory disease and Vibration White Finger claimants in Wales and England in relation to damages payments and legal costs, broken down as follows:

  £ million

  Damages

  Legal costs

  Respiratory Disease

  England

  84.4

  21.5

  Wales

  36.9

  7.7

  VWF

  England

  193.3

  20.8

  Wales

  25

  2.9

  The cost of medical examinations is normally borne by the Department. Where, exceptionally, claimant's have incurred medical costs the Department has paid out £64,434 broken down as follows:

  Medical costs (£ million)

  Respiratory Disease

  England

  19,357

  Wales

  3,193

  VWF

  England

  37,870

  Wales

  3,014

  388W

  Miners Pension Scheme (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many ex-miners in the Easington constituency will benefit from the recently announced one-off lump sum payments from the MPS. [31028]

  Mr. Wilson
  This information is not kept on a constituency basis and can be identified only at a disproportionate cost.

  However, we estimate around 12,000 members in the British Coal north-east area will benefit from this one-off lump sum payment, including those living in my hon. Friend's constituency of Easington.

  Arms Sales (India)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role she is playing in the promotion of arms sales to India; and what assessment she had made of the impact of sales on the(a) dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and (b) stability in that region. [29685]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The promotion of any legitimate UK defence exports, in co-ordination with industry, is the responsibility of the Defence Export Services Organisation of the Ministry of Defence.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support she is providing to industry for the development of renewable forms of energy; and if she will make a statement. [30803]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: The Government are providing substantial support to industry for the development of renewable forms of energy.

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

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

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

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

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

  389W
  study of the feasibility of an underwater cable to connect parts of the western seaboard of the UK directly to the National Grid.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of electricity was provided by renewable carbon free energy sources at(a) January 1999, (b) January 2000, (c) January 2001 and (d) January 2002; and what her forecast is for each of the next 10 years. [31360]

  Mr. Wilson
  The percentages of electricity generated in the United Kingdom from hydro, wind, solar photovoltaics, wave and tidal sources in 1998, 1999, 2000 were 1.7 per cent., 1.7 per cent. and 1.6 per cent., respectively. The percentage declined in 2000 because of the lower level of hydro output in that year resulting from lower precipitation.

  The Government's target is that by 2010, 10 per cent. of licensed UK electricity sales will come from renewable sources eligible for the Renewables Obligation. It will be for suppliers to determine the proportion of the 10 per cent. which comes from individual renewable sources.

  Oldbury Nuclear Power Station
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the development of the Oldbury nuclear power station. [30804]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: As stated in BNFL's Annual Report and Accounts for 2001, Oldbury power station is projected to end its generating life in 2008. There are no plans for further development of the station.

  Chapel Cross Power Station
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to examine the restrictions upon Chapel Cross power station which prevent it from supplying energy to Scotland. [31259]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: The Department has had a number of discussions with BNFL and Ofgem over this issue. Ofgem are currently considering all the views expressed, as part of their consultation exercise and I will continue to monitor developments.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had recently with Ofgem on its proposal to reduce the amount of energy that Chapel Cross power station can supply to the market. [31260]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: The Department has had a number of discussions with both BNFL and Ofgem over this issue. I also discussed this, and a number of other issues, with Callum McCarthy, the Chairman of Ofgem, on 29 January.
  390W

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Young Offenders
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of cell damage have been recorded at each of the prisons in the juvenile estate; and what the cost of each was. [29598]

  Beverley Hughes
  For the period April to December 2001, figures held centrally show the cost of damage to cells within the juvenile estate was as follows:

  £

  Brinsford

  26,888.22

  Castington

  13,204.96

  Feltham

  2725.00

  Hollesley Bay

  6,213.28

  Huntercombe

  22,474.80

  Lancaster Farms

  31,432.00

  Onley

  23,497.55

  Portland

  4—

  Stoke Heath

  6,162.01

  Thorn Cross

  0

  Werrington

  55,482.22

  Wetherby

  22,775.00

  Total

  118,855.04

  1December only

  2November and December only

  3September to December only

  4Figures not held centrally

  5July to December only

  Notes:

  1. Hindley prison and young offender institution will not start providing data until April 2002.

  2. Ashfield young offender institution as a contracted out establishment does not provide Prison Service Headquarters with this information.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether families have attended review meetings at prisons in the juvenile estate. [29605]

  Beverley Hughes
  Yes. The release of all young persons into the community from prison establishments is planned through a series of meetings. These meetings form an action plan and begin on reception and conclude prior to release. A support plan will be drawn up to enable the young person to be supported on discharge. Attendees at these meetings include sentence planning staff, community supervising officers and families. To date, 34 per cent. have been attended by families.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of self-harm have been recorded at each of the prisons in the juvenile estate since April 2000. [29595]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the number of reported incidents of self-harm for the 15 to 17-year-old age group in each juvenile establishment for the financial years 2000–01, 2001–02 up to 30 November 2001.
  391W

  Establishment

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Total

  Ashfield

  112

  65

  177

  Brinsford

  6

  5

  11

  Brockhill

  13

  13

  26

  Bullwood Hall

  1

  2

  3

  Castington

  41

  44

  85

  Eastwood Park

  3

  29

  32

  Feltham

  9

  5

  14

  Hindley

  —

  1

  1

  Hollesley Bay

  4

  7

  11

  Holloway

  8

  13

  21

  Huntercombe

  6

  3

  9

  Lancaster Farms

  6

  6

  12

  Low Newton

  1

  1

  2

  New Hall

  18

  36

  54

  Onley

  4

  15

  19

  Portland

  12

  7

  19

  Stoke Heath

  11

  10

  21

  Styal

  11

  1

  12

  Werrington

  1

  —

  1

  Wetherby

  8

  16

  24

  Total

  275

  279

  554

  1Figures up to 30 November 2001 include establishments in the female estate which hold juveniles.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many self-harm forms F2052SH were opened at each of the prisons in the juvenile estate last year. [29594]

  Beverley Hughes
  Provisional data for the numbers of F2052SH (Self-harm at Risk forms) forms opened through the juvenile estate in the period 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001 are as follows:

  Number

  Ashfield

  134

  Brinsford

  141

  Castington

  253

  Feltham

  444

  Hindley

  24

  Hollesley Bay

  164

  Huntercombe

  273

  Lancaster Farms

  63

  Onley

  205

  Portland

  68

  Stoke Heath

  244

  Thorn Cross

  1

  Werrington

  95

  Wetherby

  403

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children are on the basic level of the incentives and earned privileges scheme in each of the prisons in the juvenile estate. [29604]

  Beverley Hughes
  Owing to the fluidity of the review process, these figures are not held centrally as they change from day to day. As a guide it was envisaged that not more than 10 per cent. of the population would be on the basic regime. However, this figure is rarely reached and almost never exceeded.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) request and (b) complaint forms have been issued at each of the prisons in the juvenile estate since April 2000. [29599]
  392W
  Beverley Hughes
  Provisional date showing the numbers of request and complaint forms issued in the juvenile estate during the stated period is as follows:

  Number

  Ashfield

  323

  Brinsford

  61

  Castington

  32

  Feltham

  1307

  Hindley

  0

  Hollesley Bay

  239

  Huntercombe

  444

  Lancaster Farms

  53

  Onley

  37

  Portland

  129

  Stoke Heath

  59

  Thorn Cross

  31

  Werrington

  33

  Wetherby

  96

  1From April 2001

  2April to December 2001

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times control and restraint was used in each of the prisons in the juvenile estate since April 2000. [29596]

  Beverley Hughes
  Provisional data on the use of force on juveniles in the establishments currently in the juvenile estate since April 2000 to 22 January 2002 are as follows:

  Number

  Ashfield

  368

  Brinsford

  312

  Castington

  450

  Feltham

  511

  Hollesley Bay

  215

  Huntercombe

  436

  Lancaster Farms

  120

  Onley

  309

  Portland

  129

  Stoke Heath

  413

  Thorn Cross

  1

  Werrington

  184

  Wetherby

  167

  EU Arrest Warrant
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations have been made to other EU member states, to shorten the period between arrest, detention in custody and charge in their jurisdictions; [29403]

  (2) what representations have been made to other EU member states to ensure that United Kingdom citizens subject to the EU arrest warrant will not be held in custody for long periods before trial. [29402]

  Beverley Hughes
  None. These are matters for the competent authorities in each member state, including the United Kingdom. Under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is binding on all member states, arrested or detained persons must be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, and they are
  393W
  entitled to a trial within a reasonable time or to release pending a trial. Persons who are deprived of their liberty by arrest or detention are also entitled to take proceedings by which "the lawfulness of their detention shall be decided speedily by a court". The European arrest warrant cannot be used for the purpose of interrogating a suspect, but only for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.

  Gartree Prison Furniture Workshop
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the furniture workshop at Gartree prison was closed. [29592]

  Beverley Hughes
  Gartree prison is currently undergoing a four-year refurbishment programme. The furniture craft workshop at the prison has been closed temporarily during the refurbishment period and will re-open at the conclusion of the work.

  The course content of the work carried out in Gartree's workshops will be reviewed to ensure it meets the needs of life sentence prisoners who are in the early years of their sentence as Gartree now holds only life sentence prisoners.

  Convictions
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) number and (b) percentage of criminal prosecutions resulted in a conviction in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [29640]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The following table provides the available information, extracted from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, which relates to the number of defendants proceeded against and those found guilty in each of the years 1996 to 2000 in England and Wales.

  Statistics for 2001 are not yet available.

  Defendants proceeded against and those found guilty of all offences, 1996 to 2000—England and Wales

  Defendants proceeded against

  Defendants convicted

  Percentage convicted

  1996

  1,919,494

  1,438,027

  75

  1997

  1,855,333

  1,385,822

  75

  1998

  1,951,915

  1,469,734

  75

  1999

  1,881,765

  1,408,461

  75

  2000

  1,904,677

  1,423,702

  75

  Deportations
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers were removed from the country in 2001. [29759]

  Angela Eagle
  There were 6,830 principal asylum applicants (to the nearest five) removed from the United Kingdom in the period January to September 2001 (the latest period for which information is available). Further information is given in the table.394W

  Asylum removals in 20011

  Principal applicants removed

  Dependants removed2

  Total asylum seekers removed

  Ql 2001

  2,070

  n/a

  n/a

  Q2 2001

  2,375

  215

  2,590

  Q3 2001

  2,385

  355

  2,745

  1Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM).

  2Data on dependants of asylum seekers removed have only been collected since April 2001.

  Note:

  Provisional figures, rounded to the nearest five. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Information on the number of asylum removals is published on a quarterly basis. Information for the fourth quarter of 2001 will be published on 28 February 2002 on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ immigration1.html.

  Asylum Support
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made towards the introduction of an alternative to the voucher scheme of asylum support; and if he will make a statement. [29814]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that by early autumn 2002 he would have established a less divisive and more socially acceptable alternative to vouchers. That remains his intention.

  Sex Offenders Register
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are on the Sex Offenders Register in(a) West Somerset and (b) Sedgmoor. [29739]

  Beverley Hughes
  Until March 2001 data on the number of registered sex offenders were collated bi-annually on a national basis from the Police National Computer, however, this arrangement has been overtaken by guidance issued by the Home Office in respect of the statutory provisions in Section 67 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The guidance requires information about the number of registered sex offenders in each police area to be published. This will take place from June 2002 and local systems are being put in place to deliver it. Until these systems are in place such information could only be obtained by a specific exercise by the particular police force concerned which would entail disproportionate costs.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 928W, on strip searches, what response he has made to the recommendation of the Searches on the Person Review concerning statistical (a) recording and (b) monitoring of strip searches. [29735]
  395W
  Beverley Hughes
  I have not made any such response— this was an internal Prison Service review and the Prisons Board accepted the recommendations made.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 7 November 2001 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mrs. M. Brown. [29963]

  Angela Eagle
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 24 January 2002.

  Prisoner Releases
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were released on temporary licence in the last year for which figures are available; on how many occasions; for what purpose; and on how many of these occasions the prisoner(a) failed to return and (b) otherwise breached the conditions of the licence. [29526]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: In the year 2000, 10,559 persons were released from prisons in England and Wales on temporary licence. Licences can be given for a short period, for example, a day to attend a funeral, or may be given several times over a longer period, for example where a prisoner is working outside of the prison and for the purpose of resettlement and preparation for release. A total of 256,837 temporary release licences were granted over the year 2000. 318 of these were failures, the inmate did not return to prison at the time that they were required to. This represents a failure rate of 0.1 per cent. of licences granted and was the lowest rate since 1991.

  The purposes for which temporary release from prisons in England and Wales was granted in the year 2000 are given in the table.

  There are no data held centrally on how many people have breached the terms of their temporary release other than for failure to return.

  Purpose

  Number of releases

  All licences

  256,837

  Local visit

  46,406

  Resettlement

  66,520

  Accommodation

  160

  Community service

  32,158

  Employment

  21,528

  Family ties

  11,052

  Pre-parole release

  535

  Probation service

  595

  In hostel etc.

  492

  Facility

  135,501

  Reparation

  26,083

  Training and education

  14,043

  Working out

  94,019

  Others

  1,356

  396W

  Purpose

  Number of releases

  Compassionate

  8,411

  Carer

  664

  Deaths

  408

  Family needs

  551

  Family occasions

  34

  Medical

  5,816

  Religious service

  938

  Victim Support
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on funding to local victim support schemes which retain local autonomy while remaining part of a county-wide scheme that includes the witness service. [30036]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The allocation of Home Office grant to victim support schemes is determined by the Victim Support Funding Panel, a sub-committee of the Victim Support Board of Trustees, in accordance with criteria agreed annually between the Home Office and the Board of Trustees.

  It is Government policy that the delivery of Government funded criminal justice services should be organised on a criminal justice area basis. The grant criteria agreed between the Home Office and the Victim Support Board of Trustees have accordingly been framed in a way to encourage victim support schemes to plan their service delivery on an area basis, to achieve best use of resources through integrated planning.

  Female Prisoners
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the female prison population(a) have children and (b) have children under the age of four years. [28764]

  Beverley Hughes
  The last major survey of mothers in prison was at the end of 1994. The findings were included in Home Office Research Study 162, "Imprisoned women and mothers", first published in 1997.

  61 per cent. of the population surveyed were mothers of children under 18. 30 per cent. of these had children under five years.

  Research conducted for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prison's thematic review, "Women in Prison", published in 1997, indicated that 66 per cent. of the population surveyed were mothers, with over a third of the mothers having one child or more under five.

  Segregation Cells
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been held in segregation cells in each of the prisons in the juvenile estate since April 2000. [29602]

  Beverley Hughes
  Provisional data on the number of children held in segregation during the stated period are given in the table. The length of stay is dependent on the reason and will vary from no more than a few hours to a carefully prescribed number of days.
  397W

  Number

  Ashfield

  134

  Brinsford

  55

  Castington

  882

  Feltham

  154

  Hindley

  190

  Hollesley Bay

  504

  Huntercombe

  487

  Lancaster Farms

  228

  Onley

  661

  Portland

  l,2124

  Stoke Heath

  660

  Thorn Cross

  78

  Werrington

  0

  Wetherby

  380

  1From July 2001

  2Previous records held by police for investigation

  MI5
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the policy of MI5 is in respect of release of its post-1945 records to the Public Record Office. [30665]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: The Security Service systematically reviews and where appropriate releases historical records to the Public Record Office in accordance with the criteria agreed with them and endorsed by the Advisory Council.

  The Security Service has reviewed and released all archived files covering the first world war. Moving on to the second world war, the second phase in its release programme, the service released in November 2001 its fourth tranche of files on the period up to the end of that war. The service is reviewing its inter-war records in preparation for further releases. It will then move on to the period after the second world war. The timing of this depends on the resources that the service is able to devote to the process.

  Surveillance
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to paragraphs 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3 of the report of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner for 2000–01, (1) for what reasons no codes of practice had been issued under section 71(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; and if he will make a statement; [31377]

  (2) if he will list the public authorities entitled at 1 January to carry out surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and which of those authorities have exercised such powers since the introduction of the Act; [31374]

  (3) pursuant to paragraph 2.4 of the report of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner for 2000–01, to what reasons he ascribes the delay in recruiting assistant surveillance commissioners; what the appropriate establishment is for the Commissioner's Office; and on what date he expects this to be achieved; [31375]

  (4) what guidance has been provided to the Chief Surveillance Commissioner in respect of the determining of applications made to him by public authorities which
  398W
  involve eliciting matters subject to (a) legal privilege, (b) confidential personal information and (c) confidential journalistic material; and if he will make a statement. [31376]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: The three part-time assistant surveillance commissioners approved to support the Chief Surveillance Commissioner were appointed on 1 May 2001, the five inspectors were appointed during April 2001. The office of the surveillance commissioners is fully up to strength.

  The public authorities entitled to carry out covert surveillance under Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 are those listed in schedule 1 of the Act and the British Broadcasting Corporation which was added by order on 16 March 2001. All those public authorities have (as far as records indicate) used the powers available to them under Part II of RIPA.

  The draft codes of practice on covert surveillance and covert human intelligence sources have been issued in draft and were publicly consulted on. The consultation process finished on 17 November 2000. It raised a number of complex issues which required detailed consideration. The draft codes will be before the House shortly. The draft code of practice on covert surveillance provides guidance on authorisations involving confidential information which consist of matters subject to legal privilege, confidential personal information and confidential journalistic material.

  Drug Addicts
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many registered young drug addicts aged 16 to 24 years there are by region, expressed as(a) a percentage figure and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentage figures for the latest date available. [30597]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The term "registered addict" has no generally agreed definition in the United Kingdom. However, the Department of Health has published information on the number of drug misusers in treatment in England in 2000–01. The information available is in the following table. No comparable figures are available for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

  Number and percentage of drug misusers aged under 25 years in treatment by the national health service regional office area 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  Number

  Percentage

  England

  37,453

  100

  Northern and Yorkshire

  8,031

  21

  London

  6,512

  17

  North West

  5,020

  13

  South West

  4,552

  12

  West Midlands

  3,918

  10

  Trent

  3,784

  10

  South East

  3,346

  9

  Eastern

  2,290

  6

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistical Bulletin 2001/33: Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases on drug misusers in treatment in England, 2000–01 (tables 5 and 6). Available at www.doh.gov/public/sb0133.pdf
  399W

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria he applies in deciding whether the creation of a new NDPB is justified. [30461]

  Mr. Leslie
  In "Quangos: Opening the Doors", published in June 1998, the Government stated that they would ensure that a new non-departmental public body is only set up where it can be demonstrated that this is the most cost-effective and appropriate means of carrying out the given function. This remains Government policy and the analysis in each case will depend upon the specific circumstances.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of(a) large and (b) small NDPBs are covered by the Efficiency report published by the Cabinet Office. [30464]

  Mr. Leslie
  The executive NDPBs 1999 report, which was last published in March 2000, covers only the larger executive NDPBs. The threshold for inclusion was expenditure of £15 million and above in financial year 199–9.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many and what percentage of(a) large and (b) small NDPBs produce an annual report; and of those what percentage in each case is a public document; [30463]

  (2) how many (a) large and (b) small NDPBs release summary reports of meetings with (i) the general public, (ii) local authorities and (iii) Government Departments; [30465]

  (3) how many (a) large and (b) small NDPBs consult their users by means of (i) questionnaires, (ii) public meetings and (iii) other forms; [30466]

  (4) how many and what percentage of advisory NDPBs have formed their own codes for board members; and how many, and what percentage, operate registers of interest; [30468]

  (5) how many and what percentage of (a) large and (b) small NDPBs publish information on their role and work programme on the worldwide web. [30470]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government set out their policy on making the operation of non-departmental public bodies more open in "Quangos: Opening the Doors", published on 29 June 1998, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  I anticipate that the next edition, "Public Bodies 2001", will be published shortly.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of(a) large executive, (b) small executive and (c) advisory NDPBs are under the jurisdiction of the parliamentary ombudsman. [30467]

  Mr. Leslie
  All executive NDPBs are brought within the jurisdiction of the parliamentary ombudsman, unless there are exceptional reasons for not doing so, or they are already within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman.400W
  Those advisory NDPBs that exceptionally have direct dealings with members of the public are also brought within the ombudsman's jurisdiction.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether NDPBs are obliged to submit a description of functions to the annual publication of "Public Bodies". [30469]

  Mr. Leslie
  In "Quangos: Opening the Doors", published in June 1998, the Government stated that future editions of "Public Bodies" would include a description of the functions of each body listed. In line with this, a description of each individual body's terms of reference was included in "Public Bodies 1998" and has been similarly included in subsequent editions.

  Relationships (Civil Registration)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact that the enactment of the Relationships (Civil Registration) Bill would have on Government servants who are in long-term unmarried partnerships. [30814]

  Mrs. Roche
  Civil partnership registration and associated rights and responsibilities raise a number of complex issues, which have prompted a growing debate within society and the Government are watching this debate with interest.

  These issues potentially have significant financial and administrative implications and the Government cannot commit themselves to making any changes in these areas before undertaking a comprehensive analysis of all the implications. The Government are examining the issues in detail.

  Civil Defence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what communication his Department has had with civil defence officers in local government since 11 September 2001. [31242]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have met local authority representatives to discuss civil defence matters on a number of occasions and will continue to do so.

  The Civil Contingencies Secretariat has regular contact with local authority representatives and emergency planning officers, and they have met representatives of the Local Government Association and the Emergency Planning Society on 14 January to discuss a range of issues. In October the "Response to the Deliberate Release of Chemicals or Biological Agents—Guidance for Local Authorities" was issued. Local authority representatives are also directly involved in various working groups set up after 11 September.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the civil defence grants in(a) 199–7, (b) 199–8, (c) 199–9, (d) 199–000 and (e) 200–1; and if he will make a statement. [31243]
  401W
  Mr. Leslie
  The civil defence grants for the years 1996–97 to 2000–01 are as follows:

  £ million

  (a)1996–97

  14.9

  (b) 1997–98

  14.4

  (c) 1998–99

  14

  (d) 1999–2000

  14

  (e)2000–01

  14

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of funding needed to help local authorities prepare for and deal with terrorist activity in the last 12 months. [31240]

  Mr. Leslie
  The payment of civil defence grants to local authorities supports their planning of generic responses to all local disasters or crises, which includes their contingency planning for responses to terrorist activities. The level of funding is set in the light of all demands placed upon local authorities.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what additional security measures are planned by his Department to deter and detect theft and fraud. [31791]

  Mr. Leslie
  A number of baseline security measures exist to try to reduce the likelihood that thefts will occur and to limit the scope for fraud. Chiefly, these are centred on detecting those with likely criminal intent through effective vetting procedures and denying them access to our buildings through effective access control procedures.

  Whenever theft has occurred, or fraud is suspected or has been detected, an internal investigation is conducted by departmental security staff. Where appropriate, the police subsequently become involved.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has regarding the continued discharge of his functions. [32396]

  Mr. Leslie
  Sir Michael Buckley has indicated he is minded to step down in the summer. He currently holds the post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England, as well as equivalent posts in Scotland and Wales. The Government will shortly put in place arrangements to fill these posts and in doing so will take full account of their commitment to create a new unified ombudsman body in England, as set out in my statement of 20 July 2001.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for his Department in each of the last four years. [27904]
  402W
  Mr. Leslie
  Responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car Despatch Agency. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  The figures for expenditure on taxis used by staff in the Cabinet Office are £18,572.69 in 1997–98; £86,362.25 in 1998–99; £113,857.62 in 1999–2000; and £135,391.14 in 2000–01.

  Public Service Agreement
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library details of the performance of the Cabinet Office in each year since 1999 for each Public Service Agreement listed in the document Cm 4181 Public Service Agreements 1999–2002 under the headings(a) performance targets and (b) increasing the productivity of operations; and if he will make a statement. [30206]

  Mr. Leslie
  Details of the performance of the Cabinet Office in each year since 1999 for each Public Service Agreement listed in the document Cm 4181 Public Service Agreements 1999–2002 pertaining to the Cabinet Office were reported in: Cabinet Office— The Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01 to 2001–02 Cm 4618; and Cabinet Office— The Government Expenditure Plans 2001–02 to 2003–04 Cm 5119. Copies of both publications are held in the House of Commons Library and are available via the Cabinet Office website.

  Some of the Public Service Agreement targets listed in Cm 4181 which were agreed as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) were subsumed in new Public Service Agreements agreed as part of the 2000 Spending Review. These are detailed in Cm 5119.

  The Cabinet Office Departmental Report for 2002 which will be published before the summer recess will also detail the Department's performance against its Public Service Agreement targets.

  The Government Car and Despatch Agency (GDA), which is an executive agency of the Cabinet Office, and the Central Office of Information (COI), which is an executive agency and separate Government Department reporting to me/DPM, also have key performance targets.

  The GCDA performance was reported in the agency's annual report and accounts for the financial year 2000–01, which were laid before Parliament on 17 July 2001.

  Central Office of Information (COI) performance was reported in the agency's annual report and accounts for the financial year 2000–01, which were laid before Parliament on 20 July 2001.

  Regional Government Offices
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what were(a) the administrative operating costs and (b) the total annual budget in the latest year for which figures are available for each regional Government office in England. [30197]

  Mrs. Roche
  The administrative running costs and the total annual budgets (including a small capital allocation) for each of the Government offices for the regions for 2000–01 are detailed in the table.
  403W
  Programme budgets administered by the Government offices are the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for the relevant sponsor Departments. They have therefore not been included in the figures shown.

  £ 000

  Government offices

  Actual operating costs 2000–01

  Annual budget 2000–01

  North East

  8,197.33

  8,292.91

  North West

  13,651.03

  13,630.52

  Yorkshire and Humber

  9,357.21

  9,358.75

  West Midlands

  9,960.77

  9,937.89

  East Midlands

  7,335.77

  7,318.82

  East

  7,542.50

  7,494.00

  South West

  8,711.39

  9,465.30

  South East

  9,477.27

  8,721.83

  London1

  18,593.81

  18,690.40

  Total

  92,827.08

  92,910.42

  1GO London figures include the Regional Co-ordination Unit.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Youth Parliament
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason the Minister responsible for children and young people has not responded to the UK Youth Parliament's Manifesto; and if she will make a statement. [25821]

  Cambridgeshire

  Real terms figures1

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  NCE per pupil

  Pre Primary/Primary

  1,640

  1,790

  2,130

  2,100

  2,190

  2,180

  2,120

  2,030

  2,090

  2,200

  Secondary

  2,590

  2,670

  2,910

  2,800

  2,850

  2,750

  2,740

  2,700

  2,630

  2,770

  Total

  2,030

  2,150

  2,460

  2,390

  2,470

  2,420

  2,380

  2,300

  2,300

  2,430

  SSA per pupil

  Pre Pri/Primary

  1,790

  1,960

  2,010

  1,970

  2,010

  1,990

  2,030

  1,910

  2,080

  2,190

  Secondary

  2,570

  2,670

  2,700

  2,760

  2,730

  2,640

  2,670

  2,640

  2,640

  2,680

  Total

  2,110

  2,250

  2,300

  2,300

  2,310

  2,260

  2,290

  2,200

  2,300

  2,390

  1All figures are in real terms at 2000–01 prices, and rounded to the nearest £10.

  Notes:

  1. Information for 2000–02 and 2002–03 is not yet available and as a result it is not possible to arrive at a projection.

  2. Figures for 1990–91 to 1998–99 include grant maintained schools. Figures for 1999–2000 include ex-GM schools.

  3. Expenditure data for 199–000 is taken from S52 outturn statements completed by local education authorities and returned to DIES. Data for all previous years is taken from DETR's Revenue Outtum Returns.

  4. For the years 1990–91 to 1992–93, Net Current Expenditure after recharges was not recorded in the R01. Net Recurrent Expenditure is used for these years. Therefore, per pupil figures for these years may not be strictly comparable with the later years.

  5. SSA figures implicitly cover funding for Special Schools, and there is no split available for special schools.

  6. The NCE figures provided here are for pre primary/primary and secondary only. Hence the two sets of figures are not comparable

  7. Pupil numbers used in calculating per pupil figures are financial year averages, based on January Annual School Census returns.

  8. Pupil numbers for secondary schools for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 include sixth form colleges; these ceased to be classified as schools in April 1993.

  9. Cambridgeshire was re-organised in 1998–99.

  Training
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many adults aged over 25 years are without access to training, broken down by region expressed as(a) a percentage and (b) the total figure, ranked in descending order according to percentage
  404W
  Mr. Denham
  I have now made a comprehensive response on behalf of the Government to the UK Youth Parliament Manifesto. Officials in the Children and Young People's Unit are working with co-ordinators in the UK Youth Parliament to ensure that all members of the Parliament have copies and it is available on the unit's website at www.cypu.gov.uk.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she intends to make information available to schools on the level of financial support for the teachers' pay award next year. [31295]

  Mr. Timms
  The pay award will be funded from schools' general budgets. The effective increase in Education Standard Spending is 5.7 per cent. for 2002–03 compared with an estimated cost of the pay settlement of 4 per cent. It is for local education authorities to notify schools formally of the level of their budgets in 2002–03 by 31 March.

  SSA (Cambridgeshire)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the Cambridgeshire local education authority spend on education above SSA per pupil for the primary and secondary sectors, and in total, for 1990–91 to 2000–02 and projected for the financial year 2002–03, adjusted for inflation at current values. [29507]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The following table contains the latest available information:

  figures for the period in which the latest figures are available. [30578]

  John Healey
  Set out is information from the National Adult Learning Survey (NALS2001). It shows the number of people (in thousands) aged 26 and over who are classed as non-learners. A non-learner is someone who has not
  405W
  taken part in any of the NALS-defined learning activities over the past three years. The information is not available for Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  Government office region

  Percentage of GOR who are non-learners

  Number (Thousand)

  Population in GOR (Thousand)

  Wales

  47

  916

  1,962

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  41

  1,373

  3,349

  North West

  37

  1,695

  4,543

  North East

  37

  637

  1,713

  West Midlands

  35

  1,251

  3,545

  East Midlands

  34

  966

  2,832

  London

  31

  1,472

  4,738

  South West

  30

  1,013

  3,394

  Eastern

  28

  1,028

  3,695

  South East

  25

  1,347

  5,473

  It is important to note that most of these non-learners have chosen not to do any learning or are restricted by family/work circumstances. They are not usually non-learners as a result of access problems. In terms of factors that might restrict access, some of the access-related obstacles to learning (not mutually exclusive) mentioned by non-learners include:

  Cannot find local opportunities to learn (12 per cent.);

  Problems arranging transport to the course (15 per cent.);

  Course difficult due to health/disability (9 per cent.)

  Qualifications (19-year-olds)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many 19-year-olds there are without a basic qualification, broken down by region, expressed as(a) a percentage and (b) total number, ranked in descending order according to percentages for the latest date for which figures are available. [30592]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information readily available has been derived from the Labour Force Survey and is given in the table.

  Estimates of the numbers and proportions of 19-year-olds1with no qualifications by region, 2000–01, United Kingdom

  Population aged 19 (Thousand)

  Numbers with no qualifications (Thousand)

  Proportion with no qualifications2(Percentage)

  United Kingdom

  726

  61

  8

  Home countries

  Northern Ireland

  23

  2

  9

  Wales

  43

  4

  9

  England

  605

  49

  8

  Scotland

  54

  4

  7

  Government office regions

  East Midlands

  55

  6

  10

  West Midlands

  61

  6

  10

  East

  63

  6

  9

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  61

  5

  8

  London

  93

  7

  7

  North West

  74

  5

  7

  South East

  101

  7

  7

  North East

  38

  2

  6

  South West

  59

  3

  6

  Notes:

  1. Due to small sample sizes, the proportion of 19 to 21-year-olds with no qualifications have been used as a proxy for 19-year-olds without qualifications.
  406W
  2. Estimates of the proportion with no qualifications are subject to sampling error. Figures are accurate to:

  ±1 percentage point for UK and England estimates (eg estimate for England lies between 7 per cent. and 9 per cent.),

  ± 2 percentage points for Yorkshire, London, North West, South East, South West and Scotland estimates,

  ± 3 percentage points for East Midlands, West Midlands, East of England, North East and Wales estimates, and

  ± 4 percentage points for the Northern Ireland estimate (eg the proportion lies between 5 per cent. and 13 per cent.)

  Source:

  DfES estimates from the Labour Force Survey, averaged data—winter 2000–01 to autumn 2001

  Excellence in Cities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the Standards Fund and Excellence in Cities allocations for the City of Newcastle upon Tyne in 2001–02 and the provisional indication of allocations for 2002–03. [31473]

  Mr. Timms
  The following table shows allocations for the Standards Fund and Excellence in Cities for the city of Newcastle upon Tyne in 2001–02, and the provisional allocations so far announced for 2002–03. The figures include both Government and local authority contributions.

  2001–02 Standards fund allocations for City of Newcastle upon Tyne council

  £

  Adult: Pupil Ratios in Reception Classes

  685,209

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  162,500

  Beacon Schools

  116,500

  Children in Public Care

  44,317

  Children of Asylum Seekers

  57,500

  City Learning Centres

  1,200,000

  Class Size Recurrent Funding

  1,319,707

  Devolved Capital

  2,025,164

  Drug Prevention

  69,510

  Early Years Training and Development

  72,002

  Education Health Partnerships

  31,689

  Ethnic Minority Achievement

  613,453

  Family Literacy and Numeracy

  45,200

  Fresh Start

  250,000

  Gifted and Talented Children Summer Schools

  18,000

  Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers

  278,145

  Information Management Strategy

  146,998

  Key Stage 3: National Implementation

  288,063

  LEA Music Services

  234,600

  Literacy and Numeracy Summer Schools

  70,000

  Maintained Nursery School Service

  119,189

  National Curriculum

  88,062

  National Grid for Learning

  1,145,169

  NDS Condition Funding

  1,701,927

  Performance Management

  146,664

  Playing for Success

  50,000

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  1,031,147

  Qualifications

  11,202

  Schools Achievement Awards

  266,280

  School Improvement

  961,000

  School Laboratories

  339,716

  School Leadership

  125,647

  School Security

  107,799

  Seed Capital Challenge

  192,864

  Sick Children

  12,662

  Small Education Action Zones

  318,120

  Small Schools Fund

  328,591

  Social Inclusion: Pupil Support

  1,405,300

  Special Educational Needs

  462,163

  Specialist Schools

  1,099,620

  Study Support

  287,697

  Supported Early Retirement Scheme for Heads

  40,000

  Teachers' Sabbaticals

  90,000

  407W

  2001–02 Standards fund allocation for City of Newcastle upon Tyne council

  £

  Teaching Assistants

  1,094,654

  Teenage Pregnancies

  100,900

  Traveller Children Achievement

  31,502

  Year 6 Booster Classes

  222,892

  Year 9 Booster Classes

  54,000

  Youth Service

  11,650

  Excellence in Cities

  Excellence in Cities: Excellence Challenge

  262,334

  Excellence in Cities: Secondary1

  1,903,000

  Total

  21,740,308

  2002–03 Standards fund allocation for City Newcastle upon Tyne council

  £

  Adult: Pupil Ratios in Reception Classes

  298,958

  Advanced Skills Teachers (ASTs)

  128,250

  Beacon Schools

  154,500

  Capital Funding for Nursery Education in Disadvantaged Areas

  98,178

  Class Size Initiative

  31,875

  Drug, Alcohol and Tobacco Prevention

  73,107

  Early Years Training and Development

  72,002

  Education Health Partnerships

  32,439

  Ethnic Minority Achievement

  613,453

  Gifted and Talented Summer Schools

  18,000

  Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers

  327,117

  KS3 Strategy and Summer Schools

  891,734

  LEA Music Services

  403,926

  National Grid for Learning

  1,580,283

  NDS Condition Funding

  2,609,476

  NDS Devolved Formula Capital

  1,435,678

  New School Security Projects

  49,051

  Performance Management and Threshold Assessment

  150,829

  Playing for Success

  50,000

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  926,761

  Qualifications

  17,875

  School Improvement

  1,056,250

  Seed Challenge Capital

  322,740

  Sick Children and Children in Public Care

  63,567

  Small Schools Fund

  376,000

  Social Inclusion: Pupil Support

  1,445,949

  Special Educational Needs

  514,894

  Study Support

  480,658

  Teacher Recruitment Incentives

  96,115

  Teacher Sabbaticals

  162,000

  Teaching Assistants

  1,086,584

  Teenage Pregnancies

  56,646

  Traveller Children Achievement

  31,502

  Year 6 Booster Classes

  224,658

  Excellence in Cities

  Excellence in Cities: Excellence Challenge

  594,094

  Excellence in Cities: Primary and Secondary1

  2,033,663

  Total

  18,508,812

  1Including Gifted and Talented Children Learning Support Units and Learning Mentors

  School Run
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she has taken to discourage the use of private cars to transport pupils to and from school; and if she will make a statement. [31492]
  408W
  Mr. Timms
  The Department for Education and Skills continues to work closely with the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the Department of Health and other members of the School Travel Advisory Group to promote alternatives to the car for the journey to school. We have also produced practical guides and software to assist local authorities and schools in introducing school travel plans and encouraging more sustainable school travel.

  Special Grant Allocation
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will(a) set out the criteria for allocation of special grant to authorities most affected by the transfer of funding for sixth form provision to the Learning and Skills Council and (b) list the amount of special grant to be made available to each local education authority. [32088]

  Mr. Timms
  The special grant will be paid to local education authorities:(a) whose post-16 SSA (after their Learning and Skills Council allocation for sixth form provision has been deducted) is less than 7.5 per cent. of their original post-16 SSA, and the grant will be such as would make up the post 16-SSA to 7.5 per cent. of the original post-16 SSA; or (b) who have less than 85 per cent. of their increase in education SSA (before the LSC transfer) available for purposes other than the increase in sixth form funding compared with the total of 2002–03 real terms guarantees for the authority, and the grant will be such as would make 85 per cent. of that increase available. The table sets out the allocations of special grant by LEA.

  £million

  LEA name

  Allocation

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.075

  Barnet

  0.800

  Bromley

  0.522

  Ealing

  0.369

  Kingston upon Thames

  0.137

  Merton

  0.107

  Coventry

  0.398

  Wolverhampton

  0.236

  Sefton

  0.561

  Wirral

  0.203

  Doncaster

  0.111

  Calderdale

  0.454

  Gateshead

  0.106

  North Tyneside

  0.223

  Sunderland

  0.024

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0.426

  South Gloucestershire

  1.433

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0.575

  North Yorkshire

  1.093

  York

  0.316

  Dorset

  1.222

  Poole

  0.301

  Leicestershire

  1.836

  West Berkshire

  0.294

  Peterborough

  0.428

  Cheshire

  0.387

  Devon

  0.625

  Worcestershire

  0.771

  Medway

  0.179

  Cumbria

  0.478

  Gloucestershire

  0.413

  Northumberland

  0.883

  Suffolk

  0.466

  Warwickshire

  0.696

  Total

  17.149

  409W

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Housing Benefit
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which local authorities had(a) the best and (b) the worst record in paying housing benefit in 2000–01. [30478]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There are many factors involved in the effective administration of housing benefit. There is therefore no single objective measure by which to judge local authorities' achievements as best or worst overall.

  Income Support and Family Credit
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many incorrect income support and family credit awards there were in each of the past 10 years, as a percentage of the total; and what the total cost to the Department was. [30568]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. Family credit was replaced by working families tax credit in October 1999, and is the responsibility of the Inland Revenue.

  Widowers' Pensions
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to introduce widowers' pensions. [30577]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our reforms to bereavement benefits introduced in April 2001 concentrate the help available where and when it is needed most—on immediate needs and on families with children. For the first time these benefits are available equally to both men and women.

  Immediate help with costs arising on bereavement is provided by a lump sum bereavement payment of £2,000—double the old widow's payment of £1,000.There is a weekly benefit for widowed parents who satisfy the qualifying conditions. A bereavement allowance is also available for 12 months, to give widows and widowers aged 45 or over without dependants time to adjust to their new circumstances.

  We keep all our policies under review but we have no plans to introduce a bereavement pension for either widows or widowers.

  Pensioners (Incomes)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners had no private income by region, expressed as(a) a percentage and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentage figures for the latest year for which figures are available. [30588]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is in the table:

  Pensioners with no private income

  Government office region

  Percentage

  Number

  North-east

  24

  80,000

  London

  22

  170,000

  Scotland

  19

  100,000

  North-west and Merseyside

  18

  150,000

  410W

  Pensioners with no private income

  Government office region

  Percentage

  Number

  Yorks and Humber

  16

  90,000

  Wales

  16

  60,000

  West-midlands

  15

  90,000

  Eastern

  13

  90,000

  East-midlands

  12

  60,000

  South-west

  11

  70,000

  South-east

  8

  70,000

  GB average

  15

  1,040,000

  Notes:

  1.Private income has been assumed to mean any income other than that provided by state benefits. The estimates have been given for all pensioner units and are from the Family Resources Survey 1999–2000.

  2.Pensioner units are defined as single (non-cohabiting) people over state pension age (65 and over for men, 60 and over for women) and couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over state pension age.

  3.Proportions have been rounded to the nearest 1 per cent. and numbers to the nearest 10,000. Due to small sample sizes some figures are uncertain.

  4.The FRS relies on self-reporting of private income and hence estimates are subject to error.

  Both pensioners with no private income and those with some private income will benefit from the Pension Credit.

  Incomes
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many children were living in households below 60 per cent. of median income by region, expressed as(a) percentage of population and (b) total number, in descending order according to percentage figure in 2000; [30605]

  (2) how many individuals had incomes below 50 per cent. of average income, by region, expressed as (a) a total number and (b) a percentage of population, in descending order according to percentage figures in 2000. [30609]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Such information as is available can be found in the publication "Households Below Average Income 1994/5–1999/00", a copy of which is held in the Library. Results for 2000–01 will be published in April.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people spent at least two out of three years on a low income, broken down by region, expressed as(a) a percentage of population and (b) a total number, in descending order according to percentage figures in 2000. [30607]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available.

  Bank Accounts
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many households were without a bank or building society account, broken down by region, expressed as(a) a percentage and (b) the total number, ranked in descending order according to percentage figures for the latest year in which figures are available. [30613]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.
  411W

  Households without a bank or building society account

  Region

  Number without (thousand)

  Percentage without account

  Scotland

  320

  14

  North East

  170

  14

  Wales

  160

  12

  Yorks and Humberside

  230

  10

  West Midlands

  200

  10

  London

  290

  9

  North West

  270

  9

  East Midlands

  150

  8

  Eastern

  110

  5

  South West

  90

  5

  South East

  140

  4

  All

  2,140

  9

  Notes:

  1.Post office accounts, TESSAs and ISAs are included as bank or building society accounts.

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

  3.Estimates of numbers in each region are subject to greater uncertainty, as FRS-based results are not reconciled to regional-level population estimates, except for London.

  4.The numbers are rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 2000–01

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners in Wythenshawe and Sale, East who(a) qualify for and (b) claim the minimum income guarantee; and how many will be eligible for the new pension credit. [30882]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  As at August 2001 there were 4,700 minimum income guarantee (MIG) claimants in the Wythenshawe and Sale, East constituency.

  Estimates of the number of people who may be eligible for, but who have not claimed the MIG are not available below national level.

  It is estimated that around half of all pensioner households, that's over 5 million pensioners, stand to gain from the introduction of pension credit.

  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applicants there have been to date for the minimum income guarantee from pensioners within the Harwich constituency; how many have been approved; and what estimate he has made of the total number of potential applicants. [30981]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  As at August 2001 there were 4,200 minimum income guarantee (MIG) claimants in the Harwich constituency.

  Estimates of the number of people who may be eligible for, but who have not claimed the MIG, are not available below national level.
  412W
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Glasgow, Cathcart constituency are benefiting from the minimum income guarantee. [31214]

  Mr. McCartney
  As at August 2001 there were 2,500 minimum income guarantee claimants in the Glasgow, Cathcart constituency.

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

  Mr. McCartney
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 January 2002, c. 45–0W]: The information requested for (b) is set out in the paper "The Pension Credit: long-term projections", which has been placed in the House Library.

  The additional information requested is set out in the tables:

  (a) Additional annual costs of earnings uprating of minimum income guarantee (MIG)1

  Year

  £ billion

  2002

  0.4

  2003

  0.6

  2004

  0.7

  2010

  1.0

  2020

  3.0

  2030

  7.0

  2040

  9.0

  2050

  11.0

  12001–02 prices

  (c) Annual costs in 2001–02 prices of increasing the basic state pension to the level of the Minimum Income Guarantee and then uprating by earnings thereafter

  £billion

  Year

  All

  Over 75s

  Over 80s

  2002

  8.5

  3.8

  2.2

  2005

  10.7

  4.7

  2.8

  2010

  15.8

  6.6

  3.9

  2015

  21.3

  8.9

  5.3

  2020

  27.5

  12.1

  7.0

  2025

  36.8

  17.3

  9.6

  2030

  48.6

  22.2

  13.6

  2035

  61.0

  28.5

  17.1

  2050

  92.3

  51.4

  34.1

  (d) Annual costs in 2001–02 prices of earnings uprating state second pension (S2P)

  Year

  £billion

  2002

  0.0

  2005

  0.0

  2010

  0.0

  2015

  0.1

  2020

  0.3

  2025

  0.7

  2030

  1.2

  2035

  2.0

  413W
  Notes:

  1.All costs are for Great Britain.

  2.The costs of earnings uprating of the MIG are rounded to the nearest one billion pounds from 2010 onwards. Costs are not available for every year requested.

  3.The costs of earnings uprating of the MIG assumes that pensioners' incomes grow over the long term at the same pace as average earnings and the distribution of earnings is the same over time in earnings terms. Average earnings are assumed to grow in line with Treasury economic assumptions until the end of the Parliament and then 1.5 per cent. above inflation over time.

  4.The costs of earnings uprating of the MIG are calculated as compared to price uprating. Because pensioners' incomes tend to grow over time faster than inflation, the costs of the MIG under price uprating would fall dramatically over time as ever fewer pensioners would be entitled to ever smaller amounts. The costs of increases in the basic state pension and state pension are net of income related benefit savings that would be generated by these increases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Source:

  The Government Actuary's Department

  Private Pension Funds
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 812W, if he intends to include potential or attributed income from individual private pension funds, not yet annuitised or drawn down, in the assessment of pension credit. [31452]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave him on 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 851W.

  Medical Assessment Services
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to improve professional expertise and awareness of disability issues by medical assessment staff contracted to his Department. [29070]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  All doctors who work for SchlumbergerSema Medical Services on benefit assessments receive mandatory training in disability assessment. This includes assessment of mental health problems, and appropriate behaviours, attitudes, and sensitivities for dealing with people with disabilities.
  414W
  All Medical Services doctors participate in a regular programme of continuing professional education, which ensures they maintain up to date knowledge of disabling conditions. The current year's programme includes a module on sensory impairment, which has been developed in consultation with organisations representing people with visual and/or hearing impairments; and a module on rehabilitation.

  Medical Services and this Department encourage and sponsor doctors working for Medical Services to sit the examination for the Diploma in Disability Assessment Medicine.

  Vocational Rehabilitation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking in conjunction with other Departments to improve awareness of vocational rehabilitation issues by general practitioners(a) in their initial training and (b) through continuing professional development. [29071]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  A major goal of the Government is to help those people who become sick or disabled and who can work to do so, either by retaining their job or by rehabilitating to new employment. The Government recognise the important role that general practitioners play in this area through the treatment they provide to patients of working age and through the advice they provide as certifying medical practitioners.

  This Department's Chief Medical Adviser issues guidance to GPs in relation to their role as certifying medical practitioners which stresses the need for clinical management which will encourage and support work retention and rehabilitation. In conjunction with the medical professional bodies this Department has developed training material for GP registrars. This material, along with further information for established GPs, such as evidence based recovery times, can be found on the Department's website www.dwp.gov.uk/medical. This information is also available in the House of Commons Library. We have also supported a project by Staffordshire university to develop a distance learning course for GPs in occupational health and rehabilitation matters. We are planning to develop additional on-line educational tools for GPs which will support work retention and rehabilitation.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason payments of winter fuel allowances have been delayed for up to 28 days. [28856]

  Mr. McCartney
  It is the Department's intention that winter fuel payments are received before Christmas. Because of the volumes involved they are made on a rolling programme throughout November. This year around 11 million, the overwhelming majority, were made before Christmas as we had undertaken to do.

  For those customers who were required to make a claim (normally men aged 60–64) payment should be made before Christmas on claims received prior to 24 September.
  415W
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many men over the age of 60 years who were entitled to the winter allowance in their own right have so far failed to make such a claim; and if he will make a statement. [27225]

  Mr. McCartney
  Those who attained age 60 before or during the qualifying week and were not in receipt of benefits which trigger automatic entitlement, have to claim. To date, 74 per cent. of claim forms that were issued to all potentially eligible people have been returned. The deadline for claiming is 30 March 2002.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate(a) the number of households entitled to an automatic winter fuel payment this winter and (b) the number of those payments that were issued before 25 December 2001. [28181]

  Mr. McCartney
  The number of households entitled to an automatic winter fuel payment this winter will not be available until later in the year. However, around 11 million individual automatic payments were identified with most issued before 25 December 2001.

  New Deal
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the(a) Government Departments and (b) agencies which have (i) signed national new deal employer agreements, (ii) signed employer agreements with local jobcentres and (ii) not signed new deal employer agreements. [25982]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The following Government Departments and agencies have signed national new deal employer agreements:

  Benefits Agency

  Cabinet Office

  Charity Commission

  Child Support Agency

  Court Service

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Department for Education and Skills

  Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Department for Work and Pensions

  Department of Health

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  DSS Youth Training

  Employment Service

  Health and Safety Executive

  HM Customs and Excise

  HM Land Registry

  HM Prison Service

  HM Treasury

  Home Office

  Inland Revenue

  Insolvency Service

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  416W

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  Radiocommunications Agency

  The Rent Service

  Treasury Solicitors Department

  Vehicle Inspectorate.

  Information on those Departments and agencies which have and those which have not signed employer agreements with local jobcentres is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many job brokers have been appointed under the New Deal for Disabled People; what the average client-base is per broker; how many brokers have a case load(a) exceeding 100 and (b) less than 10; and what proportion of job placements have resulted in long-term employment. [27670]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: A total of 64 job brokers have been appointed under the new deal for disabled people.

  Under the new deal for disabled people, long-term employment is defined as sustained employment of six months or more. As the new deal for disabled people only became operational on a national basis in July 2001, it is too early to provide figures on job placements resulting in long-term employment.

  Some job brokers are area-based while others operate nationally so it is not possible to produce an "average" client base. Latest figures of job brokers in operation show that 14 have a current caseload of less than 10 clients but 15 already have a caseload of over 100.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in each of the last four years. [27969]

  Mr. McCartney
  The cost of buildings refurbishment in DWP for each of the last four years is as follows:

  £

  1998–99

  6,923,448

  1999–2000

  9,682,536

  2000–01

  8,662,522

  2001–02

  17,613,051

  Refurbishment of former DSS offices is the responsibility of Land Securities Trillium as the prime contractor in accordance with their Life Cycle Capital Expenditure programme. This programme is designed to maintain the required accommodation standard within our offices. The cost of this is already accounted for in the contract price that is paid for each building.

  The refurbishment costs quoted are for offices in the former ES and include Jobcentre Plus Pathfinder offices from April 2001. The increase in 2001–02 over previous years is accounted for by the commencement of the roll out of Jobcentre Plus.

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 6 November 2001,
  417W
  Official Report, column 195W, on industrial injuries disablement benefit, for what reason information is not available on claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit which have been refused as a result of the applicant's condition being caused through work processes and not as a result of accident or prescribed disease; and how the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council monitors this situation. [28310]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 29 November 2001,Official Report, column 1145W.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of people in(a) the constituency of Buckingham and (b) total UK population claim (i) incapacity benefit, (ii) the children's tax credit, (ii) bereavement benefit, (iv) attendance allowance, (v) council tax credit, (vi) invalid care allowance, (vii) housing benefit and (viii) disability living allowance. [22535]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Population figures are not available for parliamentary constituencies. The available information is in the table.

  Percentage of GB population in receipt of benefits1

  Benefit

  Great Britain2

  Incapacity benefit

  4.2

  Bereavement benefit3

  0.5

  Attendance allowance

  2.2

  Disability living allowance

  3.9

  Council tax benefit

  10.0

  Housing benefit

  8.0

  Invalid care allowance

  0.7

  1Children's tax credit is the responsibility of the Inland Revenue.

  2Figures for Northern Ireland are not included. Social security matters in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  3Bereavement benefit includes bereavement allowance and widowed parent's allowance which were introduced for new claims from April 2001 and widow's pension or widowed mother's allowance.

  Sources:

  Incapacity benefit–5 per cent. sample at 31 August 2001.

  Bereavement benefit–100 per cent. count at 31 August 2001.

  Disability living allowance and attendance allowance—100 per cent. count at 31 August 2001

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit–100 per cent. case load stock-count at 10 May 2001.

  Invalid care allowance–100 per cent. extract of the computer system at 30 September 2001.

  Population data—Office for National Statistics, Population Estimates Unit (estimated resident population mid–2000 based on the 1991 census).

  Unemployment (Disabled People)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many disabled people were on Disability Employment Service instigated training courses in each month since January 1997, expressed(a) numerically and (b) as a percentage of total unemployed disabled people (i) nationally and (ii) in the south-west. [11373]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  418W

HEALTH

  Beta Interferon
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the prescribing of beta interferon. [12550]

  Ms Blears
  We are currently holding discussions with the manufacturers to consider a range of options under which drugs for multiple sclerosis might be made available under the national health service. One option is a 'risk-sharing' scheme which will evaluate their clinical and cost effectiveness.

  NHS Estate
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all NHS estate disposals undertaken in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 200–2, specifying the additions to public funds achieved. [15761]

  Mr. Hutton
  A schedule provides details of the disposals achieved by National Health Service Estates on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in 2000–01 and the total proceeds generated from them in that year has been placed in the Library.

  Details of the individual properties sold by NHS trusts are not collected centrally. In 2000–01 NHS trusts received income from the sale of fixed assets of £378 million. While this sum covers all fixed assets, the majority was from the disposal of land and buildings. This information is not yet available for 2001–02.

  Cloned Embryos
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recent high court decision on the regulation of the creation or use of cloned human embryos. [18018]

  Yvette Cooper
  In its judgment given on 15 November 2001 in the judicial review brought by the Pro-Life Alliance, the High Court declared that embryos created other than by fertilisation were not regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The Government were granted leave to appeal.

  On 18 January 2002 the Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the original judgment. This means that the creation and use of embryos created by cell nuclear replacement (so called 'cloned embryos') is governed by the 1990 Act and regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The Pro-Life Alliance was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords and costs were awarded to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral statement of 6 December 2001 on waiting lists, if individuals in Worcestershire who have removed themselves from NHS waiting lists and paid to have major heart surgery performed will be able to seek reimbursement for their local health authority or elsewhere; and if he will make a statement. [22259]
  419W
  Yvette Cooper
  On 6 December 2001, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a patient choice package. From July 2002, if a patient with coronary heart disease has been on an in-patient waiting list for over six months, they will be able to seek swifter treatment in either the private sector, in another European Union country or in a different national health service hospital.

  This patient choice package is not, however, retrospective and patients who have previously chosen to elect for private treatment, cannot be reimbursed by the NHS under any circumstances.

  The decision to treat NHS patients in private facilities will be made locally. Those local decisions should be made on the basis of proper involvement in the planning process. Services bought from the private sector will be paid for by the NHS body commissioning the work (usually the primary care group/primary care trust) and the patient will receive free NHS service in the private sector organisation

  Any decision to use private sector providers will be made on the basis of value for money, clinical need and all appropriate clinical standards must be maintained.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of patients that have hospital appointments postponed as a result of being away from home when contacted by hospitals. [31372]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data are not collected centrally on the numbers of patients whose operations have been postponed as a result of being away from home when contacted by hospitals.

  Hospital Beds (Birmingham)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general and (b) acute beds are (i) provided at the Queen Elizabeth and Selly Oak hospitals in Birmingham and (ii) proposed for the replacement hospital; how many intermediate care beds (A) are provided by the NHS in Birmingham and (B) will be provided in 2007; and if he will make a statement on the definition of general, acute and intermediate care beds. [23280]

  Yvette Cooper
  The average daily number of available general and acute beds at University Hospital Birmingham national health service trust, for 2000–01 is 1,000 beds1. According to the University Hospital Birmingham national health service trust business plan for the new hospital current proposals are based on an assumption of 1,185 general and acute beds for 2008.

  For the first time the Department has been collating data for availability of intermediate care beds. Central figures are not currently available, but local data suggest that there are 220 intermediate care beds in Birmingham. This includes those provided in non-NHS organisations. The National Beds Inquiry model suggests that Birmingham needs at least a further 100 intermediate care beds, for when the new private finance initiative hospital is completed. Birmingham health authority is planning phased development of this.
  420W
  General and acute includes all in-patient beds open overnight except for maternity, mental illness and learning disability beds. General and acute include intermediate care beds provided by national health service trusts and primary care trusts.

  Intermediate care encompasses a wide range of service models and can be provided in a range of settings. The beds in this category reflect the residential rehabilitation service model and may be either 'step down' that is following a stay in acute hospital, or 'step up' that is referral by a general practitioner, social services or a rapid response team in cases which would otherwise necessitate acute admission or admission to longer-term residential care.

  1Source:

  Korner—KH03

  Efficiency Task Force
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the NHS Efficiency Task Force last met. [24574]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Efficiency Task Force last met on 28 June 1999.

  We now take a wider view of performance, that also includes the delivery of quality and access targets. The continued development of our approach to performance is now informed by the Performance Working Group. The aim of the Performance Working Group is to provide practical advice on the design and implementation of a system and approach to performance management. It has members from the national health service, academics, and patient's organisations. It met four times in 2001, and last met on 24 January 2002.

  We have introduced a range of measures to improve performance in the NHS. This includes the publication of comparative information—as part of the performance indicators; investment—including 7,500 more consultants and 20,000 more nurses by 2004; setting national standards—through the national service frameworks; stronger regulation and inspection—where the Commission for Health Improvement plays a key role; and spreading best practice—for example, by the Modernisation Agency.

  Health Trusts (Private Medical Insurance)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate for each English health trust(a) the total expenditure by the trust on private medical insurance for trust employees and (b) the number of employees provided with private medical insurance in each of the years 1997–98 to 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [24038]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 December 2001]: Information about the provision of private medical insurance for national health service trust employees is not collected centrally.

  Roaccutane
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Medical Control Agency about greater controls on the use of Roaccutane and better information on the packaging of this drug. [25364]
  421W
  Ms Blears
  Roaccutane (isotretinoin) is licensed only for the treatment of very severe and disfiguring forms of acne. Roaccutane is a prescription only medicine and the terms of the marketing authorisation specify that it must be prescribed by, or under the supervision of, a consultant dermatologist. In addition, the supply of Roaccutane is restricted to hospitals or specified retail pharmacies. It is rare for the licensing authority to restrict prescription and supply in this way.

  The safety of all medicines on the United Kingdom market is continuously monitored by the Medicines Control Agency. The product information includes the summary of product characteristics for prescribers and the patient information leaflet included in each pack of the medicine. These are also kept under continuous review to make sure that they provide the most up to date and relevant information to healthcare professionals and the public regarding the safe use of the medicine.

  The product information for Roaccutane was last updated in June 2001 with regard to warnings and possible side effects. One of the key previous amendments to the product information was the strengthening of the warning relating to depression and other psychiatric reactions including suicide, which was approved in March 1998.

  Hospital PFI Projects
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the(a) progress and (b) likely future timescale of each of the hospital PFI projects which have been selected as pilots for the contracting-out of the management of ancillary staff. [25496]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: Recent progress has been good. The risk matrix, which states which parties manage the various risks in the retention of employment model, has been agreed by Unison, private sector contractors and the Department. Bidders at the three pilot sites are now finalising their best and final offers incorporating the risk matrix and these will be received shortly. This will allow an evaluation of the model, along with establishing if it is value for money, to take place during March. If successful, the first contracts should be signed in March.

  NHS (Early Retirement Costs)
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost of early retirement to the NHS budget was in the financial year 2000–01. [26613]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not hold details of total early retirement costs for 2000–01 for the national health service. However, under the provisions of the NHS compensation for premature retirement scheme, during 2000–01, NHS employers have paid ongoing contributions totalling £86,118,000 and capital sums totalling £106,603,000, which includes £46,419,000 for a special exercise to clear residual liabilities for scheme members over age 60. These contributions defray expenditure on benefits, in respect of early retirements in the years up to and including 2000–01.

  Vein of Galen
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what facilities are available within the NHS for treating
  422W
  the condition of Vein of Galen; what specialists on the treatment of Vein of Galen are available to treat patients through the NHS; and whether the Great Ormond Street Hospital provides specialist treatment for the Vein of Galen malformation. [26049]

  Jacqui Smith
  Great Ormond Street jointly manages the provision of national health service funded specialist clinical services for this condition in partnership with the National Hospital for Neuroscience. As a national tertiary centre, Great Ormond Street arranges treatment and aftercare for all United Kingdom referrals for children who either have or have had this condition. As this is a relatively new, highly specialist and developing service, a clinical review body has been organised to assess the most appropriate interventions on an individual case by case basis.

  Great Ormond Street has recently appointed a new consultant in this specialty, whom they intend to send to Paris for specific training in this procedure. There are currently no children waiting for surgical intervention for this condition in the UK.

  Respiratory Disease
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of treating respiratory disease to the NHS in each of the last five years. [27459]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department does not have precise details of the cost of treating respiratory disease. However it estimated that respiratory disease accounted for approximately 6 per cent. of hospital expenditure, 13 per cent. of primary care expenditure and 12 per cent. of pharmaceutical expenditure.

  Two Shires Ambulance NHS Trust
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on improved ambulance communications in the Two Shires Ambulance NHS trust area in each year since 1997. [27785]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not available centrally on expenditure on improved ambulance communications by the trust in each year since 1997.

  Care of Vulnerable Adults
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what legislation is in place to prosecute individuals who(a) neglect and (b) abuse vulnerable adults in care settings; and if he will make a statement. [27034]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: It is an offence under section 127 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to ill-treat or wilfully neglect mentally ill patients. In addition, the Mental Health Act 1959 makes it an offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a mentally disordered woman in his care. Those who commit offences against other vulnerable adults will be liable to prosecution for criminal offences which are of general application.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed by the Food Standards Agency in(a) the north-west and (b) Lancashire. [27858]
  423W
  Yvette Cooper
  In the north-west (defined as covering Cheshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Cumbria) 180 staff currently work for the Food Standards Agency and the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), which is an executive agency of the FSA. Of these, 90 staff work in Lancashire.

  The MHS also employs some 49 contract official veterinary surgeons in the north-west, of which 16 are in Lancashire. The actual numbers vary from week to week.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed by the Food Standards Agency in Wales. [28656]

  Yvette Cooper
  21 staff currently work for the Food Standards Agency (FSA), Wales. Of these, 18 staff are on loan from the National Assembly for Wales.

  The Meat Hygiene Service, which is an executive agency of the FSA, employs a further 241 staff. The Meat Hygiene Service also employs some 55 official veterinary surgeons on contract although the actual number varies from week to week.

  Epidemiological Data
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether continuity of epidemiological data will be maintained for areas which were health authorities before the latest reorganisation. [28210]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information needs in the light of the current re-organisation are currently being considered. Continuity of data will be an issue but it will also be important to provide data at operational levels of the new organisation where responsibilities will lie and decisions be made.

  From later this year primary care trusts will be taking on the majority of functions of existing health authorities and will be the focal point locally for improving the health of the community, securing high quality services and integrating health and social care locally. Data at this level will therefore be the main priority.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the planned expenditure on health as a percentage of GDP in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [28031]

  Mr. Hutton
  The planned gross national health service expenditure on health as a percentage of gross domestic product for the financial years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 is shown in the table. The figure for 2003–03 includes the extra £1 billion announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget report on the 27 November 2001.

  Gross NHS spend as a percentage of GDP

  NHS spend

  2001–02

  6.3

  2002–03

  6.5

  2003–04

  6.6

  Note:

  These figures do not include private spending
  424W

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effects of(a) surgery and (b) medicinal drugs on the life expectancy of those who have rheumatoid arthritis. [28116]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: Research in England does not answer this specific question. However, recent research in the United States of America suggests that the average life expectancy of those with rheumatoid arthritis is shortened by about four years for women and eight years for men. Although modern medical and surgical treatment have done a great deal to improve the quality of life for people with rheumatoid arthritis, evidence suggests that there is still room for the development of more effective treatments.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently considering the clinical use of etanercept and infliximab as second-line treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults. The appraisal is expected to be issued in March 2002.

  Carbon Monoxide
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase awareness of the symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning among the medical profession. [28055]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: In September 1998, the then Chief Medical Officer, Sir Kenneth Calman and the then Chief Nursing Officer, Mrs. Yvonne Moores published a letter "Carbon Monoxide: The Forgotten Killer". The letter pulled together the most current information available on carbon monoxide and was forwarded to community nurses, midwives, health visitors and general practitioners, who are most likely to be aware of patients' living conditions and so can identify those at increased risk. This letter is currently being revised for re-issue and will be circulated soon.

  The Department is also hoping to forward a video tape, prepared for the Health and Safety Executive, to all GP surgeries. This video tape highlights the symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning and advises medical practitioners on how to diagnose possible cases of poisoning.

  Health Authorities
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the proportion of non-executive posts filled by people living in Warrington, North in health authorities and trusts covering the Warrington, North constituency(a) in 1997 and (b) at the latest available date. [28056]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 January 2002]: The information requested is given in the table:

  Non-executive posts on national health service boards serving the Warrington North constituency occupied by people living in Warrington North1

  1997(April)

  2002(January)

  Clatterbridge Centre Oncology NHS Trust

  0(6)

  0(6)

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  0(5)

  0(5)

  North Cheshire Health Authority

  1(6)

  1(6)

  North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  2—

  1(6)

  425W

  Non-executive posts on national health service boards serving the Warrington North constituency occupied by people living in Warrington North1

  1997 (April)

  2002 (January)

  Warrington Community Trust

  2(6)

  2(6)

  Warrington Primary Care Trust

  2—

  30(0)

  Warrington Hospital NHS Trust

  0(6)

  2—

  5 Boroughs NHS Trust

  2—

  30(0)

  Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority

  2—

  40(l)

  Total

  3(29)

  4(30)

  1Figures in brackets give total number of non-executives on board.

  2Body did not exist or no longer exists

  3No appointments made to date

  4Only chair appointment made to date

  Table 1: Number of nursing homes and private hospitals and clinics, 1997 to 2001—as at 31 March

  Health authority1

  19972

  19982

  19992

  20002

  20012

  Barking and Havering

  18

  22

  23

  24

  24

  Barnet

  29

  34

  35

  36

  32

  Bexley and Greenwich

  19

  29

  28

  24

  23

  Brent and Harrow

  24

  32

  37

  35

  37

  Bromley

  35

  34

  29

  29

  29

  Camden and Islington

  14

  14

  17

  18

  17

  Croydon

  33

  36

  40

  3—

  38

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  23

  33

  30

  34

  32

  East London and The City

  15

  16

  26

  19

  20

  Enfield and Haringey

  30

  32

  31

  28

  29

  Hillingdon

  13

  12

  13

  14

  15

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  40

  57

  63

  63

  71

  Kingston and Richmond

  23

  23

  22

  22

  22

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  49

  58

  68

  69

  67

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  61

  61

  66

  66

  68

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  24

  27

  26

  27

  24

  1Information on nursing homes is collected at health authority rather than local authority level.

  2The number of homes in 1997 refers to the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997

  3Not available

  Source:

  Department of Health annual returns

  Table 2: Number of residential care homes1,21997 to 2001

  At 31 March

  London Borough3

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Barking and Dagenham

  29

  33

  33

  33

  31

  Barnet

  112

  130

  127

  132

  126

  Bexley

  58

  64

  67

  67

  63

  Brent

  92

  95

  97

  87

  87

  Bromley

  112

  100

  107

  107

  99

  Camden

  70

  66

  56

  55

  47

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Croydon

  143

  185

  183

  192

  207

  Ealing

  101

  120

  100

  72

  100

  Enfield

  113

  126

  124

  117

  123

  Greenwich

  46

  50

  19

  45

  47

  Hackney

  39

  39

  34

  38

  46

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  34

  33

  4—

  33

  32

  Haringey

  104

  94

  109

  116

  122

  Harrow

  77

  76

  75

  77

  76

  Havering

  66

  61

  64

  63

  65

  Hillingdon

  68

  70

  67

  71

  68

  Hounslow

  39

  44

  43

  48

  40

  Islington

  43

  42

  55

  41

  40

  Kensington and Chelsea

  22

  21

  18

  18

  16

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  71

  70

  71

  66

  65

  Lambeth

  119

  115

  114

  108

  105

  Lewisham

  83

  76

  87

  84

  85

  Merton

  54

  52

  60

  56

  61

  Newham

  47

  52

  50

  55

  57

  Redbridge

  69

  77

  72

  75

  70

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  54

  63

  59

  55

  55

  Southwark

  78

  46

  73

  72

  72

  Sutton

  62

  64

  62

  60

  59

  Tower Hamlets

  31

  28

  28

  28

  23

  Waltham Forest

  99

  98

  118

  109

  108

  Wandsworth

  80

  77

  78

  98

  95

  Westminster

  40

  41

  35

  36

  35

  426W

  Care Homes (London)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nursing and (b) residential homes have closed in each London borough in each year since 1997. [28490]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of residential care homes and nursing homes1for each year since 1997 is given in the tables.

  Information on nursing homes is collected at health authority rather than local authority level.
  1General and mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics. Includes dual registered homes, therefore the number of residential homes and nursing homes should not be added together.

  1Excludes children's homes

  2Includes dual registered homes, therefore the number of nursing homes and residential homes should not be added together.

  3Information is collected at the local authority geographical level and is presented for each London borough

  4Not available

  Source:

  Department of Health annual returns

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent discussions he has had with the Children's Hospice Movement about their funding from the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [28515]

  (2) what guidance he plans to give to primary care trusts about purchasing care from children's hospices; and if he will make a statement. [28516]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have not been in recent discussion with the Children's Hospice Movement, however officials in the Department maintain a line of communication with the Association of Children's Hospices, particularly but not exclusively on the subject of funding. This includes the role to be played by the New Opportunities Fund which, later this year, will invite applications for finance in support of projects to assist children with life threatening illnesses.
  427W
  Funding available from primary care trusts for services provided by children's hospices is subject to local negotiation. Guidance was issued in February 1998, "Evaluation of the Pilot Project Programme for Children with Life Threatening Illnesses" which addresses the range of options available including hospice care. Regional offices of the Department have been asked to work with health professionals and agencies to identify current service provision and any gaps in this provision, with a view to obtaining a better strategic fit.

  As we develop the National Service Framework (NSF) for children we will consider the needs of disabled children, including those whose disability is sadly of a life threatening nature and for whom respite care at a children's hospice is the option of choice. Francine Bates, chief executive of Contact-A-Family, is chairing the Disabled Child Working Group, one of six working groups which are developing detailed advice on the content of the NSF.

  Monitored Dosage Medicines
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with primary care groups and trusts concerning the handling charge on monitored dosage medicines being introduced by Boots the Chemists. [28655]

  Ms Blears
  We have had no such discussions.

  Table 1: NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff employed by trusts within Leeds HA as at 30 September each year

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  wte

  hc

  wte

  hc

  wte

  hc

  wte

  hc

  Total Leeds HA

  Total nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  5,620

  6,980

  5,440

  6,880

  5,420

  6,900

  5,570

  7,050

  of which:

  Qualified

  4,860

  5,790

  4,720

  5,750

  4,700

  5,710

  4,890

  5,870

  Unqualified

  770

  1,190

  720

  1,130

  720

  1,190

  680

  1,170

  Leeds community and mental health services, teaching hospitals NHS trust

  Total nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  1,530

  1,970

  1,450

  1,850

  1,470

  1,930

  1,500

  2,010

  of which:

  Qualified

  1,160

  1,400

  1,130

  1,370

  1,150

  1,400

  1,160

  1,410

  Unqualified

  370

  570

  320

  490

  320

  520

  340

  600

  St. James's and Seacroft university hospitals NHS trust

  Total nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  1,920

  2,400

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  of which:

  Qualified

  1,680

  2,030

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Unqualified

  240

  370

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  United Leeds teaching hospitals NHS trust

  Total nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  2,170

  2,610

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  of which:

  Qualified

  2,020

  2,360

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Unqualified

  150

  250

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Leeds teaching hospitals NHS trust

  Total nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  1—

  1—

  3,990

  5,020

  3,950

  4,970

  4,060

  5,030

  of which:

  Qualified

  1—

  1—

  3,590

  4,380

  3,550

  4,300

  3,720

  4,460

  Unqualified

  1—

  1—

  400

  640

  390

  670

  340

  570

  1Not applicable

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  3. Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  4. Unqualified figures include unclassified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  5. wte = whole-time equivalents

  6. hc = head count

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census
  428W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients of the NHS receive monitored dosage medicines; [28654]

  (2) how many patients of the NHS on monitored dosage medicines do not get free prescriptions. [28653]

  Ms Blears
  Monitored dosage systems and other multi-compartment medicines compliance aids are widely used, especially by residents of care homes. We do not, however, hold any information centrally about the number of national health service patients whose medicines are dispensed in this way, nor about how many of those patients are entitled to free prescriptions.

  Health Trusts (Leeds)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses, (b) doctors, broken down by specialty and (c) consultants, broken down by specialty were employed by trusts in Leeds in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000 and (v) 2001. [28978]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of nurses employed by trusts in Leeds in the years 1997 to 2000 are shown in table 1. The number of doctors and consultants, broken down by specialty, employed in the Leeds health authority area in the years 1997 to 2000 are shown in table 2. Data are not held on the number of doctors and consultants, broken down by specialty, employed by trusts. Figures for 2001 are not yet available.
  429W

  Table 2: Hospital, public health medicine (PHM) and community health service (CHS) medical and dental staff at Leeds health authority by specialty and grade

  As at 30 September

  Numbers and whole-time equivalents

  1997

  1998

  All staff no.

  Consultants wte

  All staff no.

  Consultants wte

  All staff no.

  consultants wte

  All staff no.

  Consultants wte

  All specialties

  1,550

  1,300

  530

  440

  1,520

  1,310

  520

  460

  Accident and emergency medicine

  60

  50

  10

  10

  60

  60

  10

  10

  Additional dental specialties

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  Anaesthetics

  160

  140

  70

  60

  150

  140

  70

  70

  Audiological medicine

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Cardiology

  40

  30

  10

  10

  40

  40

  20

  20

  Cardio-thoracic surgery

  20

  20

  10

  10

  20

  20

  0

  0

  Chemical pathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Clinical cytogenetics and molecular genetics

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Clinical genetics

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Clinical neurophysiology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clinical oncology

  30

  20

  20

  10

  30

  30

  20

  20

  Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clinical radiology

  70

  60

  40

  30

  70

  60

  30

  30

  Community health service dental

  20

  10

  1—

  1—

  10

  10

  1—

  1—

  Community health service medical

  30

  20

  1—

  1—

  30

  20

  1—

  1—

  Dental public health

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dermatology

  20

  10

  10

  10

  20

  10

  10

  10

  Endocrinology and diabetes melitus

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Forensic psychiatry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Gastroenterology

  20

  20

  10

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  General (internal) medicine

  60

  60

  10

  10

  70

  60

  10

  10

  General psychiatry

  70

  50

  30

  20

  70

  60

  30

  20

  General surgery

  90

  90

  30

  30

  90

  80

  20

  20

  Genito-urinary medicine

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Geriatric medicine

  80

  70

  20

  20

  70

  60

  20

  20

  Haematology

  30

  20

  10

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Histopathology

  40

  30

  20

  20

  40

  30

  20

  20

  Immunology

  10

  10

  10

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Infectious diseases

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Intensive therapy

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Med microbiology and virology

  20

  10

  10

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Medical oncology

  20

  10

  10

  0

  20

  20

  10

  0

  Neurology

  20

  10

  10

  10

  20

  10

  10

  10

  Neuropathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Neurosurgery

  20

  20

  10

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Obstetrics and gynaecology

  90

  70

  20

  20

  80

  70

  20

  20

  Occupational medicine

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  Old age psychiatry

  30

  20

  10

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Ophthalmology

  40

  30

  10

  10

  40

  30

  10

  10

  Oral and maxillo-facial surgery

  20

  20

  10

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Orthodontics

  10

  10

  10

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Other

  10

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Otolaryngology

  20

  20

  10

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Paediatric cardiology

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  Paediatric dentistry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Paediatric surgery

  20

  10

  10

  10

  20

  20

  0

  0

  Paediatrics

  100

  80

  30

  20

  110

  90

  30

  30

  Palliative medicine

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Plastic surgery

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Psychiatry of learning disability

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Psychotherapy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Public health medicine

  30

  20

  20

  10

  20

  20

  20

  10

  Rehabilitation medicine

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Renal medicine

  20

  20

  10

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Respiratory medicine

  20

  10

  0

  0

  20

  10

  10

  10

  Restorative dentistry

  30

  10

  10

  10

  40

  20

  10

  10

  Rheumatology

  20

  10

  10

  10

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Trauma and orthopaedic surgery

  40

  40

  20

  10

  50

  40

  20

  10

  Urology

  20

  20

  10

  0

  20

  20

  0

  0

  As at 30 September

  Numbers and whole time equivalents

  1999

  2000

  All staff

  Consultants

  All staff

  Consultants

  no.

  wte

  no.

  wte

  no.

  wte

  no.

  wte

  All specialties

  1,550

  1,330

  510

  460

  1,550

  1,380

  510

  470

  Accident and emergency medicine

  70

  70

  10

  10

  60

  60

  10

  10

  Additional dental specialties

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  Anaesthetics

  150

  140

  70

  70

  150

  140

  80

  70

  Audiological medicine

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Cardiology

  50

  50

  20

  20

  40

  40

  20

  20

  Cardio-thoracic surgery

  20

  20

  10

  10

  30

  30

  10

  10

  430W 431W

  As at 30 September

  Numbers and whole time equivalents

  1999

  2000

  All staff

  Consultants

  All staff

  Consultants

  no.

  wte

  no.

  wte

  no.

  wte

  no.

  wte

  Chemical pathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  20

  10

  10

  0

  20

  10

  10

  0

  Clinical cytogenedcs and molecular genetics

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clinical genetics

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Clinical neurophysiology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clinical oncology

  30

  20

  20

  10

  30

  20

  20

  10

  Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  Clinical radiology

  60

  60

  30

  30

  70

  60

  40

  30

  Community health service dental

  10

  10

  1—

  1—

  10

  10

  1—

  1—

  Community health service medical

  30

  10

  1—

  1—

  30

  10

  1—

  1—

  Dental public health

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dermatology

  20

  20

  10

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Endocrinology

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Forensic psychiatry

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Gastroenterology

  20

  20

  10

  10

  30

  30

  10

  10

  General (internal) medicine

  50

  40

  10

  10

  40

  40

  0

  0

  General psychiatry

  100

  90

  30

  30

  100

  90

  30

  20

  General surgery

  100

  90

  30

  20

  110

  100

  30

  30

  Genito-urinary medicine

  10

  10

  0

  0

  20

  10

  0

  0

  Geriatric medicine

  50

  50

  20

  10

  60

  60

  10

  10

  Haematology

  20

  20

  10

  10

  20

  10

  10

  10

  Histopathology

  40

  30

  20

  20

  40

  40

  20

  20

  Immunology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Infectious diseases

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Intensive therapy

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Med microbiology and virology

  20

  10

  10

  10

  20

  10

  10

  10

  Medical oncology

  30

  20

  10

  0

  20

  20

  10

  0

  Neurology

  20

  20

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Neuropathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Neurosurgery

  10

  10

  10

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Obstetrics and gynaecology

  80

  60

  20

  20

  80

  60

  20

  20

  Occupational medicine

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  Old age psychiatry

  40

  30

  10

  10

  30

  20

  0

  0

  Ophthalmology

  40

  30

  10

  10

  40

  40

  10

  10

  Oral and maxillo-facial surgery

  20

  20

  10

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Orthodontics

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Otolaryngology

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Paediatric cardiology

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  Paediatric dentistry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Paediatric surgery

  20

  20

  0

  0

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Paediatrics

  100

  80

  30

  30

  110

  100

  40

  30

  Palliative medicine

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Plastic surgery

  10

  10

  0

  0

  20

  20

  0

  0

  Psychiatry of learning disability

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Psychotherapy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Public health medicine

  20

  20

  10

  10

  20

  10

  10

  10

  Rehabilitation medicine

  10

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Renal medicine

  20

  20

  10

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Respiratory medicine

  30

  20

  10

  10

  30

  30

  10

  10

  Restorative dentistry

  40

  20

  10

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Rheumatology

  20

  10

  10

  0

  20

  10

  0

  0

  Trauma and orthopaedic surgery

  50

  40

  10

  10

  50

  50

  20

  10

  Urology

  20

  20

  0

  0

  30

  20

  10

  10

  1Denotes zero

  Notes:

  1. "0" denotes less than 5.

  2. Figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department of Health 2000 medical and dental work force census

  Air Ambulances
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on when the research commissioned into the contribution made by air ambulances in the care and transportation of seriously ill patients will be completed; [28977]

  (2) what methodology is being employed in the research he has commissioned into air ambulance services; [28975]
  432W
  (3)whether the research he has commissioned into air ambulance services will include obtaining information about which services receive (a) staffing and (b) funding support from NHS bodies. [28974]

  Ms Blears
  The Department is commissioning a wide-ranging piece of primary research that will examine the role and effectiveness of air ambulance services in a modern national health service. The first stage is already under way and will provide an up to date review of
  433W
  existing research evidence. It is intended that the new primary research will be completed by the end of 2003.

  There are currently 12 charitably funded air ambulance services operating in England. Those air ambulances are called out to emergencies by NHS ambulance trusts and generally staffed by NHS staff. Some NHS ambulance trusts are already meeting the salary costs of these staff and, from 1 April 2002, all NHS staff costs will be met from NHS funds.

  Resuscitation Policy
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will draw up a national Do not Resuscitate policy. [29394]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are committed to ensure best practice in resuscitation decision-making throughout the national health service. In 2000, the Department published new guidance "Resuscitation Policy (Health Service Circular 2000/28)" which reinforces patients' rights on resuscitation decisions and aims to ensure that patients are properly involved.

  One of the basic principles of health care is that a competent patient has the right under common law to give or withhold consent to examination or treatment. In the case of patients who are not capable of consenting to treatment, and in the absence of a valid advance refusal of treatment, it is a doctor's duty to act in the best interests of the patient concerned. Decisions must be made on a case by case basis.

  Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken by his Department to offer cardiac screening for the condition hypertrophic cardiomyopathy to children about to take part in competitive sport. [29321]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The United Kingdom National Screening Committee (NSC) advises Ministers, the devolved National Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament on all aspects of screening policy. The NSC does not currently recommend screening for cardiomyopathy but is keeping its position under review.

  Current policy is that the relatives of a family with a known high risk of contracting this disease should receive regular cardiovascular examinations.

  The Department is working closely with the medical profession and voluntary organisations with a view to producing clear clinical guidance, which will play a very important part in raising awareness and improving diagnosis and testing of people at risk.

  Herbal Remedies
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral statement of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), on 20 November 2001,Official Report, columns 62–66WH, if he will provide references for the well-documented histories of traditional use of herbal
  434W
  remedies in Europe; and if he will list those herbal products which are able to demonstrate a history of 30 years on the market. [29521]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The European Commission's proposals for a directive on the registration of traditional herbal medicinal products include provision for a positive list of herbal substances, which will include any information necessary for their safe use. Where a traditional herbal medicine was within the parameters of that positive list it would not be necessary for applicants to demonstrate evidence of traditional use. Pending negotiations on the directive, the likely timetable for the development of such a list is not yet clear.

  Alternatively, under the published proposals, applicants would be able to produce bibliographic or expert evidence of traditional use for herbal medicinal products. Such products have been used extensively in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the European Union for many years, in the form both of individual remedies made up by herbalists and of manufactured products placed on the market by companies. There is a very wide range of possible sources which, taken together as necessary, potentially could provide the required evidence. These include: authoritative literature on herbalism; the practical evidence of numerous licensed or unlicensed manufactured products on the market in many EU member states; the long-standing lists of herbal medicines accepted as traditional by regulatory authorities in a number of member states; and the testimony of recognised experts on herbalism. This last source may be particularly helpful in confirming the patterns of usage of combinations of herbal ingredients.

  Our aim on this issue would be to minimise the regulatory impact on applicants of demonstrating traditional use, consistent with complying with legal requirements. The Medicines Control Agency intends to hold dialogue with the herbal sector with a view to developing guidance or criteria which would help meet this objective. Until these discussions have taken place, we think it would be premature to attempt to define specific acceptable sources in more detail.

  Personal Social Services (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will increase the money for personal social services in Coventry to match the national average. [28886]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: Coventry's personal social services standard spending assessment increases in 2002–03 by about 4 per cent. compared to the national average increase of about 5 per cent. Coventry's increase is below the national average mainly because its population has decreased, whereas the national population has increased. Population size is a key factor in the SSA allocation formulae.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to ensure that digital hearing aids can be provided by every NHS trust in the UK; and when the United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust will receive them; [30037]
  435W
  (2) when he estimates that health authorities in all areas of England will be able to provide digital hearing aids. [29762]

  Jacqui Smith
  We announced on 24 December 2001 that a further £20 million would be made available in 2002–03 for the modernising hearing aid services project. This will mean that by April 2003 at least 50 NHS sites will be fitting digital hearing aids and at least a further 15 will have the necessary training and equipment in place to fit digital hearing aids from 2003–04. Decisions on which sites will become involved in the project next year will be made shortly.

  The research evaluation of the modernising hearing aid services project is continuing and a final report is due at the end of this year. Decisions about further roll-out will be taken in the light of this evaluation.

  First Aid
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources he allocates for the promotion of the importance of training for first aid. [30324]

  Yvette Cooper
  Within the safety criteria of the national healthy school standard (NHSS) schools are asked to provide opportunities for all pupils to develop health skills in relation to first aid. The healthy schools programme funds education and health partnerships covering all local education authorities to provide expertise and support to schools working to achieve the NHSS.

  Additionally, the "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" White Paper of 1999 committed £2 million to install defibrillators (small portable electronic devices designed to save the lives of people who have suffered cardiac arrest) in "high traffic" public places such as busy railway stations, airports and large shopping complexes. Since April 2000 60 sites have had defibrillators installed under this initiative, and approximately 2,500 people have received training in basic life support and the use of a defibrillator.

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to expand the number of dental access centres in Shropshire. [30405]

  Yvette Cooper
  Since 1999 we have invested over £1.5 million in the Shropshire dental access centre (DAC). The DAC currently operates from six sites. Two new sites are planned to open in the early months of this year.

  Central funding has been approved to employ an extra dentist in the Oswestry site of the DAC from April 2002.

  Solihull Hospital
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 152W, on Solihull Hospital, if he will make a further statement on the future status of accident and emergency facilities at Solihull Hospital. [29332]
  436W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: At this time the service review of the accident and emergency department at Solihull Hospital being conducted by the accident and emergency sub-group of the Solihull Modernisation Board is continuing.

  This sub-group will be reporting back its findings to the newly established Solihull services review group project board in due course. It will be for the health authority, or its successor body after 31 March, to decide if there is to be any significant change to the service, and if so, this will need to be the subject of a formal consultation process.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation is occurring with local authorities on the subject of charging policies for domiciliary care. [30303]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: Consultation on draft guidance, "Fairer Charging Policies for Home Care and other non-residential Social Services" took place between 3 January and 30 March 2001. Statutory guidance was issued on 23 November 2001.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many diabetes sufferers within the Harwich constituency have taken advantage of the use of pen needles since they were made available free within the national health service. [30979]

  Jacqui Smith
  Free insulin pen needles and certain reusable insulin pens have been available to diabetes sufferers since they were added to the drug tariff with effect from 1 March 2000.

  Nationally the number of prescription items for insulin pen needles dispensed in the community in England has increased from 78,000 in the period April 2000 to June 2000 to 154,000 in the period July 2001 to September 2001. Figures are not available centrally on a constituency basis.

  NHS Eastern Region
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of(a) underspend and (b) overspend in the current financial year by each health authority in the NHS Eastern Region. [31363]

  Mr. Hutton
  By the end of this financial year we expect all health authorities to live within their agreed resource limits. Where they require support at year-end this will be provided principally through brokerage from elsewhere in the national health service. This is normal practice in managing the year end financial position of individual bodies and for the NHS overall.

  GPs
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were in each general practitioner practice within the Hillingdon health authority in each of the last seven years. [31357]

  Mr. Hutton
  Under the terms of the Data Protection Act registration, we do not release data which identifies individual practices. As the main element of the general
  437W
  practitioner's remuneration is based on the number of patients on their list, it would be inappropriate to release the information requested.

  Expectant Mothers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Nuchal folds tests have been undertaken on expectant mothers aged over 35 years in each of the last three years in(a) the national health service and (b) the private sector. [31546]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: Information about the number of Nuchal fold tests undertaken in the national health service or the private sector is not collected centrally.

  Care Home Standards
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to support and inform care home owners during the introduction of national minimum standards. [32153]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have today launched a package of measures to help the smooth introduction of the national minimum standards. This comprises:(i) Comprehensive statutory guidance from Ministers under section 6 of the Care Standards Act to the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) setting out the supportive way in which the standards should be applied. The guidance indicates that the standards should be used to help guide care homes on action they can take to improve their services. Time will be given to enable homes to meet the standards. Failure to meet standards will only be used as a reason to pursue de-registration in cases where services are a danger to vulnerable people.
  (ii) An information pack will be distributed to all registered care providers during February explaining how the national minimum standards and regulations will be operated and how the NCSC will work.
  (iii) A help line will be set up by the NCSC next month to answer questions from owners and managers of care homes about how the national minimum standards might apply to their service.

  The NCSC has been set up to encourage the provision of good quality care in care homes, not to close them down. This package is designed to help the NCSC achieve that.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether responsibility to provide ambulances to return patients who need ambulance transport from hospital to their homes lies with the ambulance service(a) where the hospital is located and (b) where the patient lives. [28233]

  Ms Blears
  Arrangements for non-emergency patient transport are determined locally. Responsibility for arranging that transport usually lies with the hospital treating the patient. In general, if the patient is attending for an out-patient appointment then either a general practitioner or the hospital makes arrangements for the journey into and out of hospital. If the patient is being discharged from a hospital, responsibility for arranging transport usually lies with the hospital. The actual transport is provided either by a national health service ambulance trust or other organisation commissioned by the hospital for that purpose.
  438W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients, requiring ambulances to return from Hampshire hospitals to Dorset, were provided with them by(a) Hampshire ambulance service and (b) Dorset ambulance service in the last year for which information is available; [28232]

  (2) how many patients, requiring ambulances to return from Hampshire hospitals to West Sussex, were provided with them by (a) Hampshire ambulance service and (b) West Sussex ambulance service in the last year for which information is available; [28230]

  (3) how many patients, requiring ambulances to return from Hampshire hospitals to the Isle of Wight, were provided with them by (a) Hampshire ambulance service and (b) Isle of Wight ambulance service in the last year for which information is available; [28229]

  (4) how many patients, requiring ambulances to return from Hampshire hospitals to Wiltshire, were provided with them by (a) Hampshire ambulance service and (b) Wiltshire ambulance service in the last year for which information is available. [28231]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Information relating to ambulance service figures are available from the Chairman of the relevant ambulance service trusts.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts he estimates will seek foundation status in the(a) current and (b) next financial year. [29656]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: We do not estimate that any trusts will seek foundation status in the current financial year. The number in the next financial year will be dependent on the outcome of the 2002 performance ratings and the number of three star trusts that choose to take that course.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the total takings from the sale or leasing of property by an NHS trust with foundation status will accrue exclusively to that trust. [29657]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 January 2002]: Consideration is being given to foundation trusts having the right to keep all the proceeds from the sale of property. National health service trusts can already keep all the income they receive from leasing property, and this freedom will apply to foundation trusts.

  MMR Vaccine
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what screening took place of members of the working party of the Medical Research Council on links between MMR vaccine and autism to avoid potential conflicts of interest; [24315]

  (2) if he will list members of the Medical Research Council working party on the MMR vaccine and autism; and what declarations of interest they have made. [24311]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 8 January, 2002]: In March 2001 the Department commissioned the Medical Research Council to undertake a wide-ranging and inclusive review of the current understanding of the

  439W
  causes and epidemiology of autism. The measles, mumps and rubella vaccine was only one of many suggested causes that were considered and is a small part of the whole report.

  The full report of the MRC review is available on the MRC's website www.mrc.ac.uk.

  The scientific experts of the review group were drawn mostly from outside the field of autism or MMR research. A third of the members comprised a lay group drawn from organisations representing the interests of people and families with autism, together with some who had other broad consumer interests.

  Along with its scientific assessment of the current knowledge of autism and recommendations for future research strategies, the MRC review included the code of conduct for the review groups, eligibility criteria for experts and lay members, and procedures for managing perceived and potential conflicts of interest. These were discussed and agreed by all members during the review process. Declarations of interest were sought early in the
  440W
  review from all members and from additional external advisers. They were kept up-to-date and a summary was provided at all review group meetings. Lists of members and the summary of their declarations of interest are published in the report at appendix 1, annex 3. The full declarations were available for scrutiny by members throughout the review.

  We have full confidence in the integrity of the review process.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many MMR vaccines have been given in each health region in the last 12 months. [31334]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information is not available for the number of measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations given. Information about coverage rates for children immunised against MMR by region is contained in the Statistical Bulletin "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 2000–01". A copy of the bulletin is in the Library and can also be found on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0l2l.htm.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—-Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Personal Statement: The Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, at yesterday's Starred Question on the decontamination of surgical instruments, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, I stated in good faith that a copy of both A review of the decontamination of surgical instruments in the NHS in England and the snapshot survey entitled Decontamination Review: Report on a survey of current decontamination practices in healthcare premises in England had been placed in the Library of the House on 11th December. Immediately after Questions I checked with the Library and discovered that, while the review had indeed been placed in the Library, the snapshot survey had not been included, as I had fully intended. I have now ensured that several full copies of both documents are available in the Library and the Printed Paper Office. I have sent a copy of both documents to those noble Lords who spoke during yesterday's Question and apologise unreservedly to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, and to the House.

Steel Industry
2.37 p.m.
Lord Brookman Lord Brookman asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken to alert the United States administration to the impact which their proposed trade action on steel products could have on the United Kingdom steel industry.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, this issue has been raised with the United States administration on numerous occasions by myself, my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and other government departments and by officials here and in the British Embassy in Washington. We have made it clear to the United States that measures such as those proposed by the United States International Trade Commission would be inappropriate and highly damaging. In our view, steel trade issues such as global over-capacity should be addressed through multilateral discussions.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very proper Answer. My noble friend and the whole House will be aware that the UK
208
steel industry has once again gone through an extremely difficult period, with closures, tens of thousands of job losses and, of course, the tragic loss of lives and terrible injuries sustained at the Port Talbot steelworks. I am sure that my noble friend and the whole House would wish to send their sympathies to those in South Wales who have been affected by that terrible tragedy.
My concern, on which I should like the Minister to assist, is that if America introduced protectionist policies, steel that would normally go to America would have to find a different home. Some of that would land on the UK's shores and be dumped at low prices. That would have a terrible effect on the steel industry. The problem that we face is that the European Union takes two to two and a half years to deal with such measures, while America takes two or three months. Will she use her good offices to assist steel employers in that matter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I join my noble friend in expressing sympathy to those affected by the tragedy in South Wales. My noble friend points out that there may be some difficulties because of what I can only describe as trade diversion from the United States to Europe in general and to the United Kingdom in particular. It is very difficult to quantify that diversion—or dumping, as my noble friend called it.
The real difficulty is that we do not know what the President of the United States is going to say about the International Trade Commission's recommendations. He may decide to set them all on one side; he may decide to accept them in full, which would have a devastating effect; he may decide to implement them partially; or he may decide to implement some totally different measures. We have to judge how we should react as a country and through the EU at that stage. I assure my noble friend that neither I nor any of my colleagues with ministerial responsibility for the issue have lost any opportunity to make our feelings felt about it. I hope that my noble friend knows that the Prime Minister has already said that he may be willing to intervene at a later stage.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, following up on that point, does the noble Baroness agree that, in the light of the strong support given to the United States over the war against terror and the close relationship that has presumably developed between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States on Afghan and terror-related matters, this is an occasion on which the Prime Minister could put in his notional diplomatic bag in his discussions with the President of the United States the trade issues relating to steel products and the impact on the steel industry? Will she confirm that the Prime Minister will do that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords. I agree with the noble Lord. I am bound to say that I have made almost exactly the same points when dealing with my United States counterparts. We are trying to change the way in which international

209
relations work. It seems a retrograde step to be looking at what I can only describe as a good old fashioned trade battle. I hope that we shall be able to resolve the dispute without resorting to the WTO, although that is clearly a possibility if the United States Government decide to go ahead with some of the recommendations. I repeat that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has written to Sir Brian Moffat and indicated that he may be willing to intervene on the issue when he judges the moment to be right for such intervention to have the greatest effect with the United States.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the United States Government's current actions are not "inappropriate", as she described them, but protectionist, as were their actions when addressing the issue of bananas and of Kashmir cloth? Is she optimistic that the countermeasures being proposed by the European Union will resolve the issue?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think that we have to be clear that the United States has not as yet taken any action. The United States International Trade Commission has made certain recommendations to the United States President, and it is now down to him to take the decision, which he must do by 6th March. A decision is therefore imminent. I can only reiterate that we shall do everything we can—including bilaterally, as my colleagues in this House and in another place have been doing—to dissuade the United States. The noble Lord has asked me whether I am optimistic. I am afraid that, in this issue, I am being realistic. I agree with him that, should the United States pursue the path that it seems all too sadly to have chosen, it will be highly damaging to steel not only in this country but among our European partners.
Lord Jones: My Lords, will my noble friend say what the Government have done to help the 4,000 steel workers who lost their jobs last year in Britain? Is it the Government's view that entry to the euro currency would assist the British steel industry in its very real difficulties?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on the last question, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, such an assessment will be part of one of the tests that, as we all know, will be a matter for decision initially for the Treasury, then for Parliament, and then for the people of this country. My noble friend asked specifically about what the Government have done to try to help the steel industry. Since October 2001, we have had an enormous number of meetings on the subject. If I may, I shall write to him on that specific point. The Question itself is on exports. Although I agree that the point he has raised is important, if he would like specific answers, perhaps he will forgive me if I write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone in the steel industry. The United States has
210
been preaching to the whole world on the issue of free trade, in the WTO and in other organisations, but now it is taking the first step backward. Why have we not protested at an international level about that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have protested very vigorously to the United States. I myself have protested very vigorously to Ambassador Zoellick, to others in the United States trade administration and to our colleagues in the State Department. I believe that the real issue is one of overcapacity in the United States steel industry. As many noble Lords will know, we in this country have undergone a very painful and difficult time in reducing our steel capacity and making the industry more efficient. We do not believe that quite the same diligence has been forthcoming in the United State on the issue. It is most regrettable that the United States should now be even considering these types of protectionist measures. We believe, however, that the way of solving it is through the multilateral means offered by the OECD and a number of other countries which together represent 98 per cent of the world-wide steel capacity. That is where the United States should be concentrating its efforts.

Silverstone Grand Prix: A43 Roadworks
2.46 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, in asking this Question I declare an interest as president of the Motorsport Industry Association.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they expect the Silverstone village bypass on the A43 to be finished in time for the British Grand Prix weekend of 5th to 7th July 2002.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of the British Grand Prix at Silverstone and want to play an appropriate role to ensure a successful event in 2002. Although we do not anticipate that the bypass will be open to the general public before this year's Grand Prix, action is being taken to ensure that the great majority of it will be available for use from 5th to 7th July to enable Silverstone race traffic to be managed effectively.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Is he aware that if the whole road is not finished and there is a repeat of last year's traffic chaos, we risk not only losing our largest televised sporting event—which, over a week, puts £40 million into the local economy but also seriously undermining the £5 billion British high-tech motorsport industry?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, yes, the Government are very aware of that, as shown last December when we lent our strong support to retaining the British Grand Prix in the face of its threatened withdrawal by some

211
of our competitors and the FIA arising from last year's difficulties. In the light of that, my honourable friend in another place recently met the Highways Agency, seeking to advance works on the bypass. What can be made available in time for the Grand Prix is currently being discussed with the Highways Agency, which is discussing the issue with its contractor. We are optimistic that, subject to final discussions, we can increase the certainty of works being carried out in time to ensure an extremely successful Grand Prix.
Lord Elder: My Lords, is the state of preparedness of the link road from the bypass to the site well advanced? While my noble friend's comments are encouraging, it is a matter of concern that the link road may not be ready. The two projects go together. Although I appreciate that the matter is principally for the site operator, can my noble friend say whether there has been any progress?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, we emphasised that at the meeting that my honourable friend and I recently held with all the parties, including Octagon. We emphasised that there was little point in the Government making efforts to ensure that our part of the jigsaw was in place unless they contributed theirs. I am certain that they were well seized of that. Nevertheless, we shall be closely monitoring the situation in relation to all parties. Despite the challenges that all parties face, there are extremely good relationships between them.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Silverstone bypass constitutes just a small part of the improvement of the road between Northampton and Oxford and that much traffic will come to Silverstone from both the south and the north? Therefore, it is not just the Silverstone area which is involved here.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite correct. It is part of a £56 million major dualling of the A43 trunk road. The review meeting that we held did not identify any other substantial pinchpoints or problems in that respect. Furthermore, there are some fairly sophisticated management plans this year to increase the use of coaches to bring in people at alternative entrances to the site and to manage the car parks vastly better than was the case last year, all of which increases our confidence but not total certainty that all parts of the problem will be cracked this year.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister accept that failure once again to get infrastructure in place for a major sporting event does not exactly inspire confidence in our ability to do so for any future large-scale sporting occasions?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in the circumstances, that is a slightly churlish remark given the effort that everyone is making to drive this event forward. I lake the opportunity to nail a few other points as regards the commitment of the Government to promoting the
212
success of the British motorsport industry. As has been signalled, we are a world leader in the design, manufacture and technology of motor sports. The DTI, with the industry, has sought to promote three centres of excellence down what I believe is called "motorsport valley" in the UK to try further to promote the transfer of the successful technology that exists in the motorsport industry to other sectors. In the light of that, the plans for Silverstone and the commitment of the Government to the event, there is no substance in the noble Lord's allegation.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the biggest problem at the previous Grand Prix held at Silverstone was that it rained and cars could not get on or off the course? It had nothing whatever to do with the road system.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I agree, but it does not give me great comfort to use that argument. Many of the measures I have described have been put in place to ensure that the event is not reliant on good weather. Having said that, it was not just appalling rain in October and November that caused delays. The contract was also stopped for two months due to foot and mouth disease, but in saying that I am not encouraging your Lordships to debate that issue again.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, do the Government accept that the importance of this matter lies in the fact that if we were to lose the British Grand Prix we would have a tough time trying to get it back and that would inevitably have a major impact on the motorsport industry, as the Minister said? The industry is not only high-tech; more than half its product is exported.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I strongly agree. Without repeating what I said previously, I echo the noble Lord's comment. The matter is also, of course, of considerable importance to the south Midlands economy—some £28 million-worth of benefits flow into that economy as a result. That is why all parties are working to ensure that the event is a great success this year.

Kalahari Bushmen
2.53 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek to persuade the Government of Botswana to continue the water supply to the remaining Bushmen of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, and generally to encourage those Bushmen who wish to go on living there to do so.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, our High Commissioner to Botswana regularly discusses issues surrounding the Bushmen who remain in the Kalahari Game Reserve with the Government of Botswana. He did this most recently on 22nd January with the Minister of Local Government.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply which, however, will not bring much comfort to these unfortunate people. First, in view of our original agreement when we gave Botswana her independence, do not Her Majesty's Government have a special duty to try to persuade the Government of Botswana to respect ILO Conventions 107 and 109 and thus to continue the Bushmen's right to enjoy the resources of their land? Secondly, in view of our excellent relations with the Government of Botswana, and, indeed, with the European Union
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch:—could we not also try to persuade the Government of Botswana to accept European Union funding which is available to help the Bushmen in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve to continue living as they wish to live?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, a kind of sixth political sense suggested to me that the noble Lord might mention the issue of Europe. I can say to him that the issue to which he rightly refers has regularly been raised. A commitment was given in 1997 by the Government of Botswana to a number of high commissioners, including our own, that while they wanted the Bushmen, the San people, to relocate they would not do that on any forcible basis. Of course, we are concerned at what is being proposed at present. However, I emphasise, as the noble Lord acknowledged, that we have the friendliest of long-standing, good relations with the Government of Botswana. There are good ways of discussing issues between friends. That is the way that the matter is being discussed.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, can the noble Lord fathom why the Government of Botswana wish to banish the Bushmen?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, that is a question, obviously, that needs to be addressed to the Government of Botswana. It is not my job to express the view of the Government of Botswana but the President has stated that the Government of Botswana would like these people to live in more settled communities where health, education and other facilities can more easily be provided. Many of them have moved. I believe that there are about 500 people still remaining in the Kalahari Game Reserve. As I said, this issue has been raised regularly. It was raised most recently at a high level when President Mogae of Botswana visited the United Kingdom last June. It was raised with him by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as Botswana borders Zimbabwe hundreds of refugees flee Zimbabwe for that country each week? Given the good relationships that the noble Lord mentioned, what help do the Government plan to give
214
Botswana to deal with further difficulties the Kalahari Bushmen will no doubt experience resulting from the ever mounting number of refugees fleeing Zimbabwe?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, not for the first time during my short period in this House I rather wish we had a Speaker who could rule what is or is not in order in relation to the Question on the Order Paper. The Question concerns the Bushmen of the Kalahari. The issues to which the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred are the kind of issues which, as she knows, are discussed in the various fora of the Commonwealth and in other institutions. If I may say so, if she wants a specific Question on refugees from Zimbabwe to Botswana, obviously, it is within the rules of the House to table a precise Question on that subject.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, if no one else wants to intervene, can I ask the noble Lord to understand that the situation is much more urgent than he suggests because the Government of Botswana have threatened to cut off tomorrow the only water pump serving these people who want to remain where they are and continue their way of life? They are being forced to live on land where there is no water because others, such as refugees, have occupied the land where they have an ancient right to live. Can the noble Lord also ask Mr David Merry, the High Commissioner, to examine the allegations, now widespread, of torture of Bushmen and of their being prevented hunting on their land using ancient methods?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, these issues are raised. However, I caution the noble Lord when he makes a human rights allegation of that kind. It is right to say that the Government of Botswana have a very good human rights record. by any comparison, not just within the region but internationally, with proper procedures for dealing with such allegations when they occur. I agree with the noble Lord that this is an important issue. As I said, it is an issue on which the Government have expressed concern. The High Commissioner has visited the area, although he has been in that post only since last September, and plans to visit it again. I absolutely assure the noble Lord that the matter will be kept under constant review.

NHS Trusts: Complaints Procedure
3 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Lord Corbett of Castle Vale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to make more effective the manner in which National Health Service hospital trusts handle patient complaints.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are currently reforming the NHS complaints procedure, following an independent evaluation of the current system. The procedure must he simple to use and easily

215
accessible For patients. We want a system that is robust and fair, has a strong independent element and provides effective redress.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that welcome reply. Will he join me in paying tribute to the staff who successfully treat millions of patients every year in our National Health Service on the back of rising investment? Does he agree that it would be irresponsible for a Member of this House or another place—a Back-Bencher or a party leader—to raise the complaint of a named patient without first consulting the hospital and the doctors concerned? Should not the patient come before the politics?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I would not disagree with my noble friend. In individual cases it is of course very much for politicians to check the facts before making statements. People in this country support the NHS and want it to do well. Informed attacks on the services provided by doctors and nurses do untold damage to the morale of dedicated people.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, do not the events of last week demonstrate just how hollow are the Secretary of State's promises to decentralise the NHS?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. In the speech that he gave to the NHS Modernisation Network two weeks ago the Secretary of State made it clear that vie want to decentralise down to individual NHS trusts. We believe that that is the best way to allow for the innovation and development of services. In a situation in which a patient has caused information to come into the public domain, it is appropriate, if the NHS trust concerned wishes to do so, to give factual comments on the case that is so raised.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister accept a complaint from me on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett'? Clearly, his treatment for amnesia about practices in the House of Commons before 1997 has been singularly unsuccessful.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am afraid that it is noble Lords opposite who suffer rather more from amnesia. They seem to forget that their record on the NHS led, as the Kennedy report said only a few months ago, to a service in which there was under-investment and which lacked capacity, and there were falling numbers of staff in training. Let us get on the record the facts about the party opposite's stewardship of the NHS.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that for many years the complaints procedure for patients has been very slow and cumbersome? If it was quickened up, not so many people would have to go to the press. Slowness is the problem. In his Answer, the Minister did not use the word "quick".
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I said in my Answer, there has been an evaluation of the way in which the current complaints system operates. I accept the noble Baroness's point. Four key problem areas were identified in the current system: that complaints were badly handled and took a long time to resolve; that communication between staff and patients was sometimes poor; that the process was not sufficiently independent; and that there were no real mechanisms for learning lessons. We take all of those points and seek, in introducing a revised complaints system, to deal with each of them effectively.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, may I say that the Question is very well framed? I have worked on the Citizens Charter for many years and accept that patients who are ill, afraid and frightened to complain need the best possible access. I also point out that—
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although the NHS is free at the point of delivery, the NHS is not free? It is paid for, as is any other service. Does he also agree that a patient within the NHS should expect the complaints procedure to be as good as, if not better than, that in the private sector?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly accept that the NHS must have an effective complaints procedure. On the point about vulnerable people who may be concerned about the consequences of making complaints, yes, I believe that we have to make sure that it is safe for people and their relatives to make complaints. We are doing that partly through the new arrangements that we are bringing forward, in which independent advocacy services will be available for members of the public to make complaints. We are also requiring every trust to establish a patient advisory liaison service to deal with problems as they arise; that will ensure that problems are dealt with and that complaints need not he made.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords—
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if we are getting facts on the record, why was a named patient—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, why was a named patient branded as racist by the Government?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I declare not a present interest but my previous experience—for 10 years I dealt with NHS patient complaints both as a district health authority member and as chair of the Whittington Hospital NHS Trust. Does the Minister agree that the prime objective of the complaints procedure should, if at all possible, be to resolve the situation for the individual patient and to build a considered understanding of the causes of complaints in order to improve services overall? If he agrees with

217
that, should not all politicians, from whatever side, understand that setting off a media feeding frenzy, far from achieving those objectives, can cause lasting distress, pain and damage to the individuals involved, whether patients or staff?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords, of course. My noble friend will know, through her chairmanship of the Whittington Trust in particular, of the splendid work that that trust has done to improve services to patients. In relation to the question of a speedy resolution, I very much agree. Feedback from the current complaints service shows that the initial resolution stage has received many commendations from the public; more criticism comes in at the second stage. We need to learn lessons. That is why we have to ensure that we have information about complaints—we must be able to track through and identify areas in which there are common complaints across the health system as a whole. We should then have a better chance of eradicating systematic failures.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Clement-Jones and the Lord Wallace of Saltaire set down for today shall each be limited to three hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food and Nutrition
3.8 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones rose to call attention to the case for a proactive and sustainable government policy on food production, food standards and nutrition; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the timing of this debate is extremely opportune, in light of the publication yesterday of the report by Sir Don Curry, Farming & Food. At a recent presentation, Professor Tim Lang of Thames Valley University gave an interesting perspective on the politics of food. In the 18th and 19th centuries, he pointed out, the British rioted about the quality of food, food availability and the market system; but not in the 20th or 21st centuries. Nowadays, we obviously have to content ourselves with the lesser excitement of debates in this House.
That is not to say that there have not been some very significant issues and problems that have made us think about food safety and supply in recent years: E. coli outbreaks, salmonella, BSE and foot and mouth disease. It is those crises that have jolted us all into greater consciousness of the importance of the
218
need for healthy food and the need to look at the food chain as a whole when discussing any one part of food policy.
In all surveys, the public have demonstrated that they place a high value on food health—in particular, in the FSA survey in September—even when that is set against the fundamentals of price and convenience.
As regards safety, in the survey published by the National Consumer Council this January as many as 77 per cent of consumers expressed concerns about the effects of pesticide use on their children. That health and safety of food must be the principal objective of food policy was emphasised only last week in a very important report, Why Health is the Key to the Future of Farming and Food, edited by Professor Tim Lang and Dr Geof Rayner. The conclusion that we can draw is that, if we aim for health objectives, environmental benefits will also be achieved.
In the massive subject area of health and food, what are the key issues? First, and above all, is that of nutrition. In this age, and in Britain in particular, we are characterised by the twin problems of obesity and food poverty. One in two people in the UK is overweight and one in five is obese. In this country, 8 million people are obese. That is a trebling since 1980. If current trends continue, more than a quarter of all UK adults will be obese by 2010. The National Audit Office estimated that obesity is responsible for 30,000 premature deaths in this country. One in 10 six year-olds may now be obese—a doubling over the past 10 years. Estimates of costs in terms of cardiovascular disease, cancer and strokes, which need to be treated by the NHS, dental disease and knock-on effects to the wider economy in terms of community care, illness and absence from work vary from £2.5 billion to £10 billion.
As regards food poverty, in 1999 the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that some 4 million people in the United Kingdom do not have access to a healthy diet. The Child Poverty Action Group report, Poverty Bites, of December 2001 claimed that about 2 million children are living in families which cannot afford to eat healthily. Others put that figure higher. Many families spend only £25 or £30 per week on their food. Healthy food does cost more. There is a lack of shops selling healthy food in poor areas. But it is not all about affordability. There has been a loss of cooking skills, and convenience can take the place of health. Such issues all contribute to the problem.
What steps can we take to counter those twin problems? First, we need proper food education in schools. A survey by the Doctor Patient Partnership found that one-quarter of children eat sweets and crisps for breakfast. We need to encourage children to take more exercise. The National Audit Office report last year and the subsequent Public Accounts Committee report made some useful suggestions on that score, saying that at least two hours' exercise a week should be the entitlement of every child.
The NHS Plan announced a series of proposals to improve diet and nutrition by 2004. Well, we are halfway to 2004. What has been the effect of those

219
government measures? Government certainly need to do more in this area, with schools in particular, to promote a balanced diet and healthy eating and to counteract the weight of advertising by food manufacturers of what are often sugary and fatty foods.
The National School Fruit Scheme, which has been piloted in 500 schools and is aimed at giving a piece of fruit a day to young children in schools and kindergartens but which will not be fully operational until 2004. has the right idea. But why should that scheme be funded by the New Opportunities Fund? Why is it not contained within mainstream funding?
The Department of Health National Diet and Nutrition Survey showed that children's consumption of fruit and vegetables is particularly low, with one in five four to six year-olds eating no fruit at all in a typical week. Surveys of older children—in particular, the one carried out by MORI last September—showed what a mountain we have to climb. The average 11 to 16 year-old is eating fewer than 13 portions of fruit and vegetables a week. Some children do not even recognise common vegetables. We are storing up trouble for the future if we do not tackle this issue even more energetically.
As regards access to healthy food, the problem of food poverty and food deserts was described in the Acheson report in 1998. A working group was set up by Tessa Jowell, MP, when she was Minister with responsibility for public health and it reported two years later. The problem was recognised by the Social Exclusion Unit in I999. The Food Poverty (Eradication) Bill—a Private Member's Bill—has taken up the cause of food poverty. The key problem is the decline in the small shop with all the underlying reasons for its inability to compete with the major supermarkets.
But what is being done to counteract that problem? Who is mapping access to food retailers in these areas and charting the decline of the neighbourhood shop? We need a proactive national policy designed to improve access to fresh food in such areas. We cannot simply rely on market solutions.
Of course, the solution will differ in each area. The work done by the East London Health Action Zone to help to set up food co-operatives and breakfast clubs for children and to teach cooking skills is a particularly good example. Central government need to set a central strategy, and local authorities should take the lead in assessing the problem in their area. They need to implement solutions tailored to the needs of the locality in order to encourage appropriate retailers back into an area or farmers' markets or food co-operatives, whatever the appropriate solution may be.
In order to improve diet and nutrition, we also need to improve labelling systems. The Food Advisory Committee recently described the situation well. Much labelling seems to be deliberately designed to confuse, with words such as "farmhouse", "pure", "fresh" and "country style" being applied to food which is far from it. The Food Standards Agency's action on that aspect of labelling is very welcome.
We live in a world where Sunny Delight, promoted as healthy, contains only 5 per cent orange juice. In addition, we have ham which can be largely water and soya, chickens which are 40 per cent water. chicken liver pate which contains pork, farmed trout and salmon which are died pink, and fish fingers which may be only half fish, and so on. We need to go furt her, and so does the European Union. Consumers need information in order to make real choices. They need to know where their food comes from, whether it contains major allergens, what production methods are being used, whether it has GM ingredients, and what its nutritional value is, in particular in respect of children's food.
There is also a great need for major retailers, food producers and farmers to agree on industry-wide food assurance schemes, such as the "red tractor" scheme and the new British standards of traceability. All that is part of,
"building the bridge of trust between producer and consumer",
as Sir Donald Curry put it in his report.
The second major issue, which although it is of great public concern has less impact in health terms, is the question of pesticides, antibiotics, hormone disrupters in food and food packaging. There has been insufficient action to follow up the findings that the use of antibiotics in animals can lead to resistant bacteria in humans. The House of Lords report in 1998 pointed to the dangers and, last year, research front St Bartholomew's Hospital, published in the New. Scientist, gave further cause for concern when it showed that children already had resistance to antibiotics which they had not even taken.
There is also cause for concern in the light of findings as yet unpublished by Liverpool University researchers, which the Food Standards Agency clearly takes seriously, of a cocktail effect which makes food containing residues of more than one pesticide many times more toxic than individual chemicals. We need to look at pesticide reduction policies rather than simply ban them only when they are proven to be harmful.
In addition, for some years there has been an intense debate on the question of food additives, with manufacturers strenuously denying that their additives cause harm. Clearly we need to put the precautionary principle into practice here as elsewhere in our food standards policy; it should not simply be left to progressive retailers to enforce. There is a strong case, as there always has been, for putting the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Pesticides Safety Directorate under the Food Standards Agency.
As to food production, our current system, with producer subsidies from the EU under the CAP and the sourcing methods of our major retailers, has had a knock-on effect—a decline in UK fruit and vegetable production and a vast increase in imports. From the evidence, it now seems very likely that the form of food production in this country which will achieve both health and environmental objectives is not intensive, large-scale farming and long-distance transport of

221
food but smaller-scale, more local food production with full traceability. That would of course also improve our trade gap in fresh produce.
Although intensive farming is lauded by some as leading to cheap food, its proponents ignore the externalities in terms of its real costs with regard to its effect on the environment and, in some cases, health. Those externalities may consist of the effect of the use of nitrates. Our estuaries are badly polluted with fertilisers and that has a major impact on fish stocks. The effect on the environment of the pollution caused by fish farming is also a matter of growing concern, in particular, in relation to wild salmon.
The recent report from Sustain entitled, Eating Oil, demonstrates the extraordinary economics of our food imports, where food is imported from thousands of miles away. Memorably, it cites how the ingredients for a Christmas dinner can have travelled over 24,000 miles before reaching the shop. Airfreight of food has doubled in extent between 1989 and 1999. By contrast, what may appear to be more expensive food now might be cheaper in the long run for society and will certainly benefit rural communities and the environment more.
There have already been knock-on effects to the developing world of our intensive agriculture with the growing of inappropriate cash crops, leading to fewer food crops produced for local needs, worsening nutrition and, in some cases, major damage to the environment. As Sir Don Curry concludes, we need to make much better use of modulation of EU production subsidies to encourage a more sustainable approach to food production. That is clearly central to any change in food policy.
The mid-term review of the common agricultural policy in 2002–03 must take the opportunity of moving the CAP towards a more sustainable food policy through transferring resources to the so-called second pillar of the CAP. Reform of the CAP would certainly be the logical outcome if the EU took note of its own White Paper on food safety, published in 2000, which advocated an integrated approach to food from farm to table. Integrated crop management clearly offers benefits. Many of us also believe that there is a case for a more positive move to organic production, not only on environmental grounds but also, particularly, in light of the fact that 75 per cent of our organic food is currently imported.
In conclusion, we clearly need a comprehensive food plan tackling the key problems, looking at the food chain as a whole, from the point of view of health, environment, society and the economy. Above all, as Sir Don urges, there is a need to re-connect the farmer to the consumer and the countryside.
What I have described is not some kind of bucolic idyll, a romantic vision of past rural England; it is a hard-headed approach based on the appreciation that if we do not grasp this opportunity to reappraise our food policy, whether that relates to production, safety or nutrition, we are guaranteeing ourselves a future of
222
ill health and environmental degradation. On these Benches, our vision is clear. I urge the Government to act now. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. Perhaps I may say what an important subject this is and how pleased I am that the Government have taken it so seriously since they were elected in 1997. I start by declaring an interest because of my long-standing association as a member of the British Co-operative Movement and as a parent trying to persuade two young teenagers to eat their greens and fruit.
This is, indeed, an appropriate time for this debate. We are a year or so into the work of the Food Standards Agency. Yesterday's announcement of the report of the farming and food commission also lends an urgency to this discussion. Two or three years ago the European Union sub-committee, of which I was a member, looked at this issue, we looked at the work of the European Food Safety Authority and how it would relate to the proposed British Food Standards Agency. In those deliberations we were concerned about how to enforce food standards throughout Europe, particularly when food scares happening in one country needed to be dealt with across Europe. I believe that the report, which raised potent and important issues, has not yet received the attention it deserves.
The Government in their manifesto of 1997 committed themselves to the establishment of a food standards agency. Indeed, the agency came into being in April 2000. As your Lordships will know, the agency is charged with protecting the public's health and consumer interests in relation to food. Last year, the agency produced a five-year plan entitled, Putting Consumers First. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Food Standards Agency for the professional and accessible way in which it has established itself so far. I have accessed its website on several occasions since it has been up and running to ask questions about food safety and food standards. I have found it a good website to use and recommend it to your Lordships. It is also extremely accessible because it contains information about the agency's deliberations. It is an example of how such a body should run.
It is worth noting that the key priorities which the Food Standards Agency have set itself have been driven by the concerns and anxieties of ordinary people. As a result. it is possible that it may succeed in its overriding objective to become the UK's most reliable source of advice and information about food. The five-year plan it set itself aims to reduce food-borne illness by 20 per cent by improving food safety right through the food chain; to help people to improve their dietary health, which echoes, quite rightly, the advocation of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones; to promote honest and informative

223
labelling to help consumers; to promote best practice within the food industry; and to improve the enforcement of food law.
I am impressed because the success of the FSA is an important contribution to the objective of a sustainable government policy on food production, food standards and nutrition. It is not possible to divide those issues between a department which deals with farming and one which deals with health. I am pleased and welcome the fact that the Government have seen this as an issue which has to be addressed across all government departments.
The Co-operative Group as a farmer, through its farming operations on over 90,000 acres; as a food processor holding substantial dairy interests, and as a food retailer with over 1,000 stores—believes that it is only through co-operation across the food chain that a sustainable food and farming sector will be created. For example, the Co-operative Group is on record as welcoming the establishment of an English food collaborative panel, which will draw together people to encourage co-operative activity across the sector. For example, farmers should co-operate for mutual benefit in the areas of knowledge transfer, benchmarking, shared kit and developing new added-value markets.
I also welcome the recommendation in the farming and food commission report that a food chain forum should be established, part of whose work will be to look at how the demand for fresh foods can be increased. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly pointed out, processed foods are a huge problem in people's diets. On a personal note I have been trying to banish processed foods from my family's diet. Indeed, it is not only slightly more expensive but involves more time. For families who are working and very busy, that is not something to be under-estirna ted.
Since the early 1990s, the Co-operative Movement has been pioneering in its work on food, and taking seriously its responsibilities to provide wholesome food, which is one of its founding principles. For example, in 1998 the Co-op led the way in telling customers exactly how much salt was contained in a product. It remains the only retailer to state that information clearly on the front of packs. In 1995 it became the first retailer to label calories and fat content per serving on the front of packs. In 1996 it advised parents about the sugar contained in drinks and fruit juice which could lead to tooth decay and poor nutrition. In 2000 it launched the first of its food crimes reports, which committed all of us in the Cooperative Movement during the hours of children's TV to a voluntary ban on advertising of all food and drink products high in fat, sugar or salt. I am proud as a cooperator of that record.
In conclusion, the question we need to ask citizens, consumers and taxpayers is, "What should we expect from the countryside, farming and food sector?" There is a highly complex interrelationship between citizens, consumers and taxpayers and their expectations of the countryside, farming and food sectors, with different
224
dynamics—and not always congruous dynamics coming into play at different times. The consumer wants convenient access to a range of different types of outlets—retail and catering which provide a wide range of safe quality food at affordable prices with year-round availability.
They also want food produced to high animal welfare standards, with minimum artificial inputs. But different consumers have different demands at different times, and sometimes those demands are incompatible. Under those circumstances, the job of government is to push forward for greater information, greater education, for appropriate powers and for the joined-up government that they have shown so far.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I shank very much the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing this debate. I wish also to say how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich.
I shall confine my remarks to some of the problems of food poisoning and how best to promote a healthy diet. In fairness to the Government, however much the authorities try to ensure that food is wholesome there will always be some people who upset the system and create small-scale, or even large-scale, havoc; such is human nature.
Some time ago a dinner of over 100 people took place in London. Half of them developed hepatitis as a result. Investigations revealed that the hepatitis virus was present in the raspberries which were served. That confused the investigators until they visited those up north who were picking the raspberries. They found that the workers were putting the raspberries into waterproof polythene bags. They were then weighed and the workers were paid according to the weight. They found that some of the workers were artificially increasing the weight of those polythene bags by attending to the usual necessities of nature. Although most people passed sterile urine, one of the raspberry pickers unfortunately was secreting the hepatitis virus in his urine. Human nature can be extraordinarily perverse.
Other problems arise through pure ignorance. Some patients were found to have a particularly nasty type of food poisoning known as Canipylobacter, which is Greek for a curved bacterium. At first it seemed that the infection was coming through chickens. I suppose that in one sense that was correct. An investigation into the way the chickens were prepared found that they were electrocuted upside down on a conveyor belt. Electrocution inevitably caused contraction of all the chicken's muscles. That encouraged the gut to disgorge its contents which then ran down to cover the chicken from head to toe—or perhaps we should say from toe to head. The chickens were then put in a giant vat which produced a kind of bacterial soup. After that the chickens were cut up and packaged.

225
When the packages were opened the chickens were chopped up on a wooden board, either in a restaurant or at home. The pieces of chicken were then sterilised by cooking. That is fine; the organism was killed. Unfortunately, the same board was often used to chop up salad and so contamination spread through the salad to the patient who became quite ill. When these unfortunate practices come to light, publicity goes some way to eliminating them. But so long as human beings are involved, such is human nature that new hazards will constantly arise. No amount of legislation will prevent that.
As to promoting a healthy diet, one of the most extraordinary and effective experiments ever carried out was in 1939 at the beginning of the war. At that time, one-third of British and one-third of American people were either underfed or ill fed. The introduction of food rationing changed that situation overnight. The ration book contained the coupons which provided people with exactly the right amount and the right kind of food every week—not too little, not too much. It was impossible to become fat unless one was on the black market. As children in those days, we used to point the finger at fat people because they were on the black market. The rationed food contained all the right vitamins, proteins, carbohydrates and fat and, better still, provided a high roughage diet in the form of the national loaf.
Although this ideal diet produced a population which was much healthier than it had been in the past, there were certain problems. There were huge rows in another place with objections being raised to the 100 per cent wholemeal national loaf. I should explain that in wholemeal flour the bran contains phytic acid which binds on to calcium and prevents its absorption. Calcium absorption at the best of times is not very good—only one-third of it is actually absorbed. If one's nutrition is fairly critical, as in times of warfare, there is a real danger that people might become deficient in calcium. So the Government legislated to have calcium put in the flour. Unfortunately, many MPs objected. They thought that it was an infringement of liberty. Fortunately for the people, their objections were not listened to.
Of course, one cannot act in that way in peacetime. However, in the United States it is a different matter. There they simply override objections to altering the food. It was discovered, for instance, that spina bifida could be prevented if a pregnant lady has enough of the vitamin folic acid in her body at the time of conception. But it is rather difficult to arrange that. So the American Government simply said that all flour must contain folic acid.
Why is a high roughage diet so desirable? It has been known to be desirable for thousands of years. As the Bishops' Bench will well know, the first mention of it is in the Book of Daniel. The young teenager and his companions refused to eat the food in the royal palace. When it was pointed out to them that they might be put to death for refusing the food, Daniel requested a 10-day trial of a high roughage diet. It was compared with the rich diet from the king's table. We could say that
226
this was the first clinical trial of its kind. Noble Lords will remember that those on the high roughage diet did better.
It was Denis Birkett who, in the 1960s and 1970s, drew attention to the problem of a low roughage diet. In Nigeria, for instance, those on a sensible diet out in the country do not have all the problems that civilisation does. But the moment people start moving into Lagos they develop appendicitis, haemorrhoids, diverticular disease and so on. The other advantage of a high roughage diet is that it prevents people becoming too obese.
During recent years it has become clear that antioxidants, vitamin E, and so on, are important constituents of diet in preventing disease. The good news is that anti-oxidants are prevalent in good wine both red and white.
I have tried to draw attention to the fact that however hard governments try to minimise food poisoning, so long as there are human beings around one will have trouble. As to the promotion of healthy eating, perhaps one of the greatest needs is to concentrate, as already mentioned, on trying to reduce obesity. Perhaps the best advice of all was given in this House some years ago—moderation in all things and not too much of that either.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, that is the best speech that I have heard from the Conservative Front Bench for a long time. I much look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich.
My noble friend deserves a good deal of credit for introducing the debate. I agree with nearly all he said, and particularly with the need to improve people's diet. It is obvious to all that we are in grave trouble with the kind and amount of food that people eat.
However, I want to concentrate on the future of farming. There is a tendency just now to look on farming as one of the great nuisances that we have to bear and that the farmers are squealing somewhat so we have to put them right and force them to be better.
I am one of the few people who farmed pre-war in a purely organic way, because that was how we farmed in Aberdeenshire. We had three years of growing grass, then a year of oats, then a year of turnips, then we sowed the crop back to grass. On a 400-acre farm, that was how system worked. It was very expensive in labour, but the labour was not expensive—people were not paid enough. We had 10 men on that farm. One could not consider operating in that way today.
We should consider the problems with herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers. All sorts of organisations have expressed extraordinary fear of those three things. Herbicides have improved the yields of a large number of crops without spoiling the ultimate result. Pesticides are extremely important. Of course they must be regulated, but they have done a great deal of good for farmers, with the result that they have been

227
able to produce crops at a reasonable price not an expensive one. Fertiliser merely adds some extra food for the plant and, again, raises yield.
We cannot dismiss those as being a great danger to the whole community. The number of complaints about being affected by pesticides on produce sold is riot large. It is difficult to prove any really bad results from it. We must consider the matter in a practical way. The biggest danger from pesticides and herbicides is of course to the operator. I need say no more about that because the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is present, and she has done more than any other Member of the House to draw attention to those real dangers. Obviously, we must take care in that regard.
I turn to the business of sustainable farming. It is very important. To me, it means maintaining the bacteria and humus content of the soil. The Macaulay Institute and others are researching that. Modern combine farming, with a proper mixture and rotation, can produce an improving humus content in the soil. We cannot throw away those advantages. If we in this country are to farm in competition, we need modern practices to compete with farmers from all over the world. At the same time, we must ensure that everything is properly regulated. The new Food Standards Agency has started in the right way, and should be a most useful body to reassure the population about their fears.
I fear the term "modulation". I understand that what the Government want to do—I should be glad if the Minister would tell us exactly how they are to do it—is to remove up to 10 per cent of the subsidy available for crop production paid to farmers by the acre and apply it to the environment. If that means planting and maintaining more hedges, or building more dykes or more stone walls, I do not see how that will ultimately benefit the environment. If we are to use that money for that, farmers will have to do the work. For goodness' sake, let us have a decent programme of planting, instead of concentrating on the hedge, which is no longer a practical proposition for fencing.
The biggest thing for which the Government must prepare in agriculture is the expansion of the EU. There are enormous areas of Poland, Hungary and other countries that are seeking entry where people can farm and make money at present prices without any trouble. I know people who are doing that, simply because labour there is so cheap. Do we say, "Right, you miserable farmers, you must compete with that"? We must have a European policy. If we have a decent policy and take care of all the dangers, the farmers of this country will live up to expectations and produce sustainable agriculture.
3.46 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, I first take this opportunity to express my warm thanks to the officers and staff of your Lordships' House for their kindness and care in my introduction, and in particular their patience with my chronic sense of direction. That is much appreciated. I am glad to be able
228
to take part in this debate about a policy for sustainable food production, not least because of its loots in the Book of Daniel.
Often, when there is a crisis, people think again about some things that they previously took for granted. Early in the Curry report on the future of farming and food is the comment:
"The trauma of Foot and Mouth Disease caused many people in the farming and food industry to think about what they do from first principles".
That has certainly been reflected in Suffolk. During the past two or three years, Suffolk suffered first from swine fever and then from the effects of foot and mouth disease. But during the same period—a devastating period for those involved in farming and other businesses in rural areas—the number of farmers' markets rose by a factor of about 10 and new businesses came into being through the farming industry. The result has been a shortening of the food chain—especially between consumer and producer—and a whole series of jobs have been retained within the rural community.
I am not for one moment suggesting that a sustainable food production policy can be put in place simply by returning to a local economy of supply and demand. I want to draw attention to the important relationship between farming and i he rural community and the fact that it involves much more than food production. My concern is underlined in another report, published at the end of last year, this time by the Sustainable Development Commission, which provided some of the analysis on sustainability for the Curry commission. The report analysed evidence from 16 organisations—not only farming and retailing, but ecological and community interests.
A section of the report has, for an official report, a rather whimsical title. Suddenly, one comes across the heading, "Issues given surprisingly little attention". That seemed to me a gentle euphemism for gaping holes or serious omissions; but it has a nice feel to it. At least, it encourages one to read on.
Under that heading, the commission identified four or five important issues which, it felt, had not been sufficiently addressed in the evidence it had received. One of those was the failure of any of the submissions to make real connections between farming and the vitality of rural economies and communities. 'The report says that no submission gave detailed recommendations as to how farming could contribute to rural culture. The report also suggests that further research is needed in that area. It is interesting that that is reflected in the Curry report itself and its recommendation that there should be a re-connection of agriculture with its own context.
The relationship between farming and rural communities needs careful attention in any consideration of a sustainable food production policy. Farming is far more than just the production of food. If that is not understood, some serious long-term mistakes will be made. It would be bizarre to produce a sustainable food production policy if it undermined the sustainability of producer communities, here or

229
overseas—perhaps particularly overseas. I hope very much that, in any future consideration of the subject, that subtle but vital component—the relationship between farming and rural culture and community—will be kept firmly in mind.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for the opportunity to speak about a subject that is close to my heart—food. In particular, I want to speak about food in relation to children's health and well-being.
First, I pay tribute to the excellent and thoughtful maiden speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. Before Bishop Richard came to the East of England, he ministered to flocks in the North East and the South West. So, he has had a good view of agriculture nay, shepherding—throughout the country. He has had a deep interest in rural affairs for a number of years. Between 1982 and 1987, he was chaplain for agriculture in Hereford diocese, before moving to Ludlow and, then, to Taunton, as suffragan bishop. Since he became Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, he has had to help the rural community through a series of major problems, including an outbreak of classical swine fever and the ravages of foot and mouth disease. The people have found him a great support in troubled times.
On a lighter note, I see that one of the right reverend Prelate's leisure activities is bumble-bees. I suppose that I should say that I look forward to hearing him buzzing around the Chamber for many years to come. Your Lordships would have been disappointed if I had not said that.
It is a simple truth that we are what we eat. Food not only gives us the building blocks for every cell of our body, it also gives us opportunities for relaxation, social interaction, expressing our cultural heritage, and artistic expression. However, there are enormous dangers inherent in getting the quality and balance of the food that we eat wrong, so important is it to our health and longevity.
Sadly, in this prosperous country, there are still around 4 million people suffering from food poverty, 2 million of whom are children. Food poverty is the inability to afford or have regular access to a range of foods from which to select a healthy and varied diet. Sadly, it is widespread. Food Justice, the campaign to eradicate food poverty, claims that an average of 5,000 people in every parliamentary constituency may be malnourished. The consequences in ill health are massive. An estimated four out of every 10 people admitted to hospital are malnourished in some way.
The effect on children, in particular, is serious. Babies whose mothers do not eat a healthy balanced diet as they grow in the womb are underweight at birth and are susceptible to heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Young babies whose mothers do not breast-feed and cannot afford good quality formula milk may be fed cows' milk and become anaemic. Children who
230
are malnourished are susceptible to all sorts of infections. They lack energy and find it difficult to concentrate at school. Victorian diseases such as rickets and tuberculosis are again being reported.
The annual financial cost of poor diet in the United Kingdom—around £10 billion, as my noble friend said—puts the costs of BSE and foot and mouth disease in the shade, enormous though they are. The cost in human life is also great. Dr Mike Rayner of the University of Oxford has shown that there is a large correlation between the incidence of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular problems and poor eating. About 250,000 premature deaths result from such diseases, and the quality of life of such patients is much reduced. The number of early deaths from malnutrition has been estimated as the equivalent of a serious air crash every day.
In order to consider solutions to food poverty, we must study the causes. Money certainly comes into it. The poor face malnourishment, but the rich do not. Income is clearly a factor. The cash available to a family on benefit to spend on food is only 63p per day for a primary schoolchild, 93p for older children and £2.37 for adults. Researchers have estimated that an adequate diet for a family of two adults with children aged 16 and 10 costs £69.20 per week; yet the food allowance in such a family's benefit payments was estimated at just £41.10, a shortfall of nearly £30 per week.
Working families have similar problems. Dr Mike Nelson of the University of London has calculated that the minimum wage needs to be £7 per hour to allow working families enough money for a proper diet. How do families on benefit or the minimum wage manage to feed their children adequately? The answer, of course, is that they do so with extreme difficulty.
Someone with an inadequate budget must be very clever at shopping and cooking. I shall return to the matter of shopping later, but, first, I should like to say something about cooking. Many people in poor families are extremely creative about how they make the cheapest ingredients appetising and balance their family's nutrition. However, that requires them to know how to do it. Recent changes in the national curriculum mean that many children go through school having studied little or no home economics and with little idea about nutrition. Part of the reason for that is that there are no special training courses for home economics teachers, so there is a shortage of people to teach it. Our children can get through life without knowing the chemical formula for ammonia or the capital of Brazil, but they cannot get through life in good health without knowing how to feed themselves.
There are many wonderful pre-prepared foods in the shops. Rich people can get away with not knowing how to cook; poor people cannot. We cannot rely on the TV cooks to do the job for us. It may be true that food has become the new sex, attracting millions of viewers to the cookery programmes of Jamie Oliver, Delia Smith and Nigella Lawson, but we cannot rely on such kitchen gods and goddesses to educate the

231
population about nutrition, even though the dishes that they prepare are very wholesome. We must do it in schools. I call on the Government to do something about it. Children are not learning to cook at their mother's knee, as I did and as my children did.
Poor families may also not have access to good cheap food. Although it is true that the cost of food has not risen as much as the price of housing, transport and clothes in recent years, the cost of healthy food has risen more than the average. For example, the average increase in food prices between 1982 and 1995 was 62 per cent, but the price of oranges rose by 80 per cent, fresh fish by 110 per cent and potatoes by 250 per cent. At the same time, chocolate biscuits rose in price by only 54 per cent, sausages by 37 per cent and cream by only 12 per cent.
Access to a wide variety of cheap food also depends on where people live and whether they have transport. Thirty per cent of villages have no shops. Out-of-town supermarkets are no use to someone without a car. Smaller shops, in competition with the buying power of the supermarkets, must charge more for food in order to make a profit. The savings that can be made by buying supermarket economy lines, multipacks or large sizes are not available to those who must carry heavy bags home on the bus or on foot.
Therefore, I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and call on the Government to address the problem of food poverty by implementing policies that only governments can, and to have a clear strategy to eradicate it. Only governments can change the planning laws, benefit levels, transport policy, the national curriculum and tax incentives. I beg the Minister to take hold of the issue. Millions of families will thank him. The country will benefit. The environment and the future of our children will be protected if he does so.
4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing the debate. I should declare an interest in that all my life I have been involved in British agriculture. I am worried about the present state of British agriculture and its ability to participate in the issues to which the report refers. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was understandably worried about matters such as the fact that one out of two people is overweight, while one in five is obese. He suggested that the Government should try to tell people to stop eating sweets. All that is perfectly correct, but I wonder whether that is the job of government. It is part of educating children, undertaken by schools and parents. I do not think that that is part of a government's job. Indeed, I fear that many of the recommendations will encourage even more bureaucracy, with yet more committees and organisations set up to run and curtail.
What will happen is what happens in every area of life. More and more bureaucracy will mean that schoolteachers will not have time to teach because they have to fill out forms; farmers will not have time to farm because they have to fill out forms and doctors
232
will not have time to doctor because of all the forms. Governments should try to halt that process. Every government try to stop it; we tried when we were in government. A Bill to cut out bureaucracy was introduced. I have temporarily forgotten its name. It was a colossal great thing with heaven knows how many schedules attached to it in the attempt to get rid of all the bureaucracy. One tends to feed on the other. Nevertheless, I beg the Government to try to cut down on all bureaucracy.
The labelling of food is confusing. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to "farmhouse" bread. A further example can be found in restaurants with regard to peas. One establishment will serve "fresh" peas, another will serve "green" peas, while yet another will offer "garden" peas. What do those terms mean? It is a complicated matter and it is right that labelling should be made clear. At the moment, something can be labelled "British" if it is imported but then carved in a British factory. The fact is that when you think you are eating British pork, in reality it is Polish pork, although nothing on the label would tell you that that is the case.
I see the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in his place. On previous occasions he will have heard what I am about to say. The Government are presiding over the biggest slump in British agriculture for a century and nothing is being done about it. I should emphasise that point: nothing at all is being done about it. The only desire appears to be to acquire cheap food. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, remarked that a Christmas dinner can travel 24,000 miles before it lands on your plate. No doubt that is perfectly true; I saw the report. It is no surprise when you get pork from Poland, bacon from Denmark and chicken from Thailand. All that is being done for cheapness.
However, nothing is being done to support British agriculture. This morning the Daily Telegraph commented in relation to the report that farmers must either "Adapt or Die". I thought that that was a staggering headline. Some 6,000 farmers have gone out of business over the past three years, while 60,000 jobs have been lost. I know of someone locally who farms, I believe, 1,500 acres. He has left farming. He told me that every single enterprise on his farm was losing money. Something has to be done about that. There is no point in telling farmers that they have to co-operate with processors, supermarkets and so forth when they cannot make any money whether or not they cooperate.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, in a moving and thought-provoking speech, made one particularly telling comment. He pointed out that the importance of agriculture and the rural environment is about much more than just food production. So it is and the right reverend Prelate was absolutely right to point that out. Agriculture involves, and is involved in, the whole of the rural economy. Agriculture both benefits from it and contributes to it.
Last night the Evening Standard, commenting on the report on food and farming, stated that poor UK farming means that shoppers "pay too much". That is

233
simply untrue. Potatoes may cost £150 per tonne, but potato crisps cost £8,500 per tonne. How can it be said that bad farming is making food expensive for consumers? A loaf of bread may cost 50p, but the wheat content of that loaf will have cost 3p. Again, how can it be said that British agriculture is ripping off the consumer? It simply is not so.
I wish to touch on the current "in" word, organic farming. Everyone says that everything must be grown organically. I do not think that that is true. Ordinary farming has a great deal to be said for it. After all, the human body is nothing if not a great chemical factory. It ingests chemicals; it breaks down chemicals; it creates chemicals and it excretes chemicals. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to take chemicals into the body, provided of course that they are properly controlled. When you are ill and visit the doctor, he gives you a pill. That pill is nothing but a concoction of chemicals. We are grateful to doctors for providing us with chemicals. However, those chemicals are very carefully scrutinised—and quite rightly so. The chemicals used in agriculture should also be carefully scrutinised. Periodically a mistake will be made. That is inevitable. But to say that organic farming is the be all and the end all is, I believe, mistaken. Apart from anything else, if all the output of British agriculture were done on an organic basis, land the size of the whole of Europe would be required to sustain it.
I am greatly worried by the fact that the Government say that they want to cut down on subsidies. I can understand why governments should want to get rid of subsidies—I should like us to be in that position—but if we do so, we must do it as part of Europe, and Europe must do it also. We in the United Kingdom cannot do it alone because if the others do not act as well, there will not be a level playing field. However, what worries me about the proposal is the modulation—transferring the subsidy from the food to the environment. The Government have suggested that that should rise to 10 per cent by 2004. That is only two years hence and means that the money that farmers will receive for their produce will fall in comparison with that given to our European competitors. I do not think that that is right. It will make it even more difficult for farmers to carry on. Putting subsidies into the environment will not mean that the person looking after that environment will be any better able to look after it and to carry on farming.
I have a horrible feeling that the Government consider that the birds, the bugs and the beetles are more important than agriculture, producing food for human consumption. The two are complementary. They should not be adversaries. I hope that something will be done to help British agriculture out of its present parlous state.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I shall confine my remarks to the production side as I know more about it. I am a farmer and I have been involved in marketing, exporting and importing meat for decades.
234
I honestly believe that consumers will have to pay a great deal more for British-produced lamb, beef and other commodities over the coming 10 years. That is because young farmers are leaving the industry in their thousands, while those remaining on the land have had enough of the supermarkets controlling their lives and their destinies. Low incomes and the lack of any financial security are the main reasons given by youngsters for not wanting to follow in their parents footsteps. The latest survey carried out by the Farmers' Union of Wales shows that in Wales nearly 50 per cent of farmers' sons will not follow in their parents' footsteps to keep the traditional family farm going. Cheap food policy is taking its toll.
Is the Minister in a position to inform the House when livestock markets will be allowed to operate freely without any restrictions and whether the Government have any plans to compensate auctioneers and farmers who operate livestock markets? John Thorley, chief executive of the National Sheep Association, said yesterday:
"It is vitally important that people should understand that the entire sustainability of the hill and upland farming systems, which dominate livestock production throughout the UK, is based on variable production whose sustainability is directly linked to an auction system as the most effective means of creating the link between seller and buyer".
Many producers are concerned about import controls. Can the Minister say what are the latest developments regarding importation of beef and lamb from foreign countries? In the year 2000 we imported 211,000 tons of beef and 118,000 tons of sheep meat. What are the current amounts of meat imported?
Tesco, Sainsbury, Safeway, Asda and Somerfield account for 80 per cent of all grocery and meat sales. Tesco is the first supermarket to make a yearly profit of more than £1 billion. Supermarkets have more power over their suppliers and farmers than the Prime Minister has over his Cabinet. With supermarkets making billions of pounds profit every year and average farm incomes at such a low level—last year the figure was just over £4,000, which is lower than the minimum wage—who can blame farmers?
Now that the supermarkets are in charge and control agricultural policies, what are the Government going to do to curb their powers? Some 94 per cent of farmers demand laws to regulate the activities of the retail giants. We need legislation to ensure fair play for all. Yesterday we debated the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food—a rehash of what has been said so many times before over the past 10 years. We need action, not words. Are the Government aware that more than half the farmers in Wales are part-timers?
The Farmers' Union of Wales. NFU Scotland, Ulster Farmers Union and NFU Cymru Wales have reacted angrily to the policy commission straying into devolved agricultural policy. By recommending that the Government—together with their partner administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—increase the modulation rate to 10 per cent, farmers' unions believe that the commission is undermining the strategies that have already been drawn up in the devolved regions.

235
As a young farmer more than 50 years ago, I was proud of the Labour Government's achievements in placing farming on a sound financial footing under the Agricultural Act 1947, but 50 years later, we see the present Government undoing all the good work of their forefathers. The Government are playing into the hands of big businesses, which have no respect for the small family farm. My advice to the Government is that they should pull themselves together to save our fanning industry. Time is not on their side. The Government should introduce short-term policies now to stop young farmers leaving the land. Thousands have already left since the Government took office in 1997.
Is there any scientific evidence to prove that an organic lamb is different from any other hill-bred lamb? I am sure that the public would be pleased to know.
I welcome the European Parliament's plan to hold a committee of inquiry into the foot and mouth epidemic in 13ritain. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has ruled out a full public inquiry, against the wishes of the majority of producers and consumers. Considering the damage and financial losses the epidemic caused. there is an overwhelming case for a full public inquiry. The public, producers and the country are entitled to the truth. Nothing more, nothing less.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffbam Prior: My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for initiating this debate. It is a massive subject and, although three hours have been allocated, to my mind that is insufficient.
Various phrases have been applied to the food chain. They include from farm to fork, from stable to table and—one I particularly like—from conception to consumption, which takes in animals and plants. All demand rigorous attention to each link of the food chain but not a rigid approach. The approach that I want to address is healthy and, in particular, animal-derived food.
Animal-derived foods start at the farm, with healthy animals under good veterinary care and in good welfare conditions. Danger spots have been identified by other speakers. One area of particular interest to me is the undue use of antibiotics and the potential for antibiotic resistance to be transferred to patients through meat and meat products. Fortunately, use of antibiotics for animals is decreasing satisfactorily through the efforts of the British Veterinary Association and RUMA—Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture.
Other hazards must include the food miles that have been mentioned in relation to Christmas turkeys. Produce may travel hundreds of miles before being offered for sale. That is of particular concern in livestock, where disease may spread. In the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the massive movement of sheep contributed enormously to the spread of the disease. Another aspect of excessive transport is the stress placed on animals before they go to slaughter. One cause is the paucity of abattoirs throughout the country, necessitating the major movement of animals for slaughter.
236
The food chain extends to the kitchen, where much needs to be done on educating the housewife on general hygiene in cooking. My noble friend Lord McColl said how amply that task might have to be attacked. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, adequately identified the problems that occur.
The global market brings food items into the United Kingdom in large amounts, from all over the world. It is said that up to 80 per cent of organic produce is imported. In many cases, the provenance of such food is unclear. One wonders whether the same production standards apply in the countries of origin as apply in this country. It is all very well seeing an attractively packaged item on the supermarket shelf presented in a polythene cover but one wonders whether the food under the cover was cleaned up with contaminated water—as indicated by my noble friend Lord McColl—or whether antibiotic sprays were used to prevent fungal or bacterial blemishes on soft fruit?
In particular, our biosecurity at all levels with respect to food and food products is not strong. In fact, it is positively, alarmingly weak. It is still possible. for example, for potentially dangerous food and foodstuffs to be imported into this country without any checks whatever on passengers coming by air or sea. There are no warning signs for travellers coming into this country about the importation of meat and meat products as there are, for example, in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
In New Zealand, sniffer dogs are employed to sniff out passengers who are carrying meat or meat products because of its great concern about the importation of meat, both for the control of aniirrial disease and human disease. We could well emulate what the New Zealanders do in this respect because there are people who are training dogs to sniff out meat and meat products.
It may well he that the recent outbreaks of classical swine fever and foot-and-mouth disease were due to imported meat and meat products getting into the food chain and eventually being disposed of by being fed to pigs.
However, an even greater concern arises from the illegal importation of what is known as "bush meat". This is a very serious concern which must be addressed without delay. Bush meat is derived from gorillas, chimpanzees and other primates. It is imported into Europe and this country as meat used for celebration purposes. Not only is it against CITES—the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—but it is at times contaminated by important and highly infectious agents, in particular with the Ebola virus, which is one of the most virulent viral diseases of man. Its introduction into a susceptible population in this country would be devastating.
A recent article in a newspaper in Cairo carried the headline,
"Monkey brains off the menu in Central Africa",
because the Ebola virus had killed about 30 people after they had feasted on monkeys.

237
Other potential pathogens include HIV—which it is thought originated in monkeys—and monkeypox. Although monkeypox in humans can be prevented by smallpox vaccination, we have not vaccinated humans for more than a generation. Were monkeypox to be imported in a food product, it would lead to major problems for people in this country.
A recent survey at Heathrow indicated that 5.5 tonnes of imported bush meat came into this country over a period of several months, and it is sold in shops in western Europe. This is one area which, despite what I have said previously, needs a rigorous application of controls. Rigid attention should be paid to the safety of the food coming into this nation.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing the debate and some very important issues that influence health. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on his thoughtful maiden speech.
Good health is a priority concern for most people. Good health is based on eating a balanced diet of wholesome food available close to home. My concern is for children and their opportunities to eat wholesome food in order to avoid diet-related illness as adults. I declare an interest as a retired paediatrician.
Wholesome food is very unlikely to be the product of processing, and processed food is seldom wholesome. We are told that organically grown and organically produced food is preferable to food grown with chemical fertilisers.
Diet-related disease, defined as health problems due to the composition of the diet, is a major contributor to premature death and disability. It includes coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis or thin and brittle bones associated with old age, dental caries, which in this country is common among Chinese and Vietnamese pre-school children, and iron deficiency anaemia, which is becoming more common in pre-school children from poor families.
The United Kingdom has a poor record among affluent countries for diet-related deaths. For example, our women have five times the death rate from coronary heart disease compared with women in France. Our men have three times more deaths from coronary heart disease than men in France, and five times that of Japanese men.
Our dismal record of diet-related disease could be significantly improved if we encouraged all Britons to eat more fruit and vegetables. Strong evidence exists for the protective effect of fruit and vegetables against coronary heart disease and cancer. The World Health Organisation in 1990 recommended that people eat at least 400 grams, or approximately five portions, of fruit and vegetables a day. This advice, if implemented, could reduce overall deaths from heart disease, stroke and cancer by up to 20 per cent.
238
The deficit of fruit and vegetable consumption in the United Kingdom is considerable. According to the target set for the consumption of fruit and vegetables by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy—surprisingly called COMA—now replaced by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, on current trends it will take another 45 years before our overall population target is met. This target is for each adult to consume 3,500 grams of fruit and vegetables per week.
Clearly the implementation of policies for good health into practice in families and individuals is neither simple nor easy. The Department of Health first recommended five portions of fruit to be eaten by everyone in 1997.1 praised this recommendation in my plenary paper on good food policy during a United Kingdom/United States of America conference in 1997 on cardio-vascular health for black and ethnic minority people. The NHS Plan 2000 also recommended five portions of fruit each day, starting with children.
The following steps would help promote good health through healthy eating. First, fresh fruit and vegetables need to be locally available at affordable prices. Therefore, more people should be encouraged to grow fruit and vegetables for sale locally. Allotments and gardens would be ideal places for this enterprise.
Secondly, in order to encourage young children to eat vegetables, a greater variety should be grown. Examples of vegetables that can be grown here successfully in spring and summer are spinach, water cress, Chinese leaves, pak choi and bean sprouts. Bean sprouts grow in the dark.
Thirdly, healthy cooking methods need to be taught in schools. One example is stir-fried vegetables. Cooked in two or three minutes, they are green, crisp and tasty. This method is the opposite of deep frying in fat.
Fourthly, steps must be taken to reverse the increasing trend of eating unhealthy convenience foods such as potato crisps with large amounts of added salt, which raises blood pressure, and meat burgers and fried chicken with a high animal fat content. In the past decade, spending on convenience foods in the United Kingdom has increased by 66 per cent, to £9 billion. A significant step towards reducing this unhealthy trend would be to stop schools allowing convenience food manufacturers to promote their products among schoolchildren. I look forward to the Minister's reply on how the Government will implement food policies which promote good nutrition and health.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I join other speakers in congratulating the right reverend Prelate on his excellent maiden speech. He made an important contribution to the debate.

239
My primary interest is in science and the need for policy to be based on evidence. There is a fashionable tendency in many quarters to turn against science and back to nature in a mushy, mystical sort of way. This movement is particularly evidenced in relation to food.
First, perhaps I may offer some facts about food to put matters into perspective. Several speakers have referred to the importance of diet. As Sir John Krebs, the excellent and admirable chairman of the Food Standards Agency pointed out recently in Nature, not eating enough fresh fruit and vegetables probably causes about 100,000 deaths a year in Britain from cancer and heart disease. Food poisoning—which is what the press is most worked up about and which, therefore, the public are most scared of—accounts for perhaps 50 to 300 deaths. Growth hormones, which are banned in Europe, pesticides—about which there is a lot of fuiss—and GM food, to all of which quite a lot of space is devoted in the commission's report, Farming & Food, are not responsible for any deaths. Again, I am citing Sir John Krebs.
The report on farming and food, much of which is admirable, is somewhat prone to follow fashion. For example it calls for extra rigorous peer review of GM research. Of course, all research should be subject to peer review. But why, significantly, single out GM and treat it so suspiciously? Is it by any chance because the commission included the chair of the Soil Association and the chair of the National Consumer Council? They are dedicated opponents of GM. Their opposition is based on ideology, and they will not allow evidence to disturb their preconceived opinions.
GM food is safer than conventional food because it has been far more rigorously tested. If subjected to the same tests, potatoes, grilled food and peanuts would be banned for a start. The scares about GM food were rejected by the Royal Society, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and by a committee of this House. Hundreds of millions of Americans have been eating GM products for five to 10 years without any deaths and even without a single law case. If no one in America finds grounds to sue, there must be something right.
Again, let us look at pesticides. A Guardian article recently did its best to scare people about synthetic pesticides by claiming that one in every three mouthfuls we eat contains poison. It was written by a prominent member of the Soil Association. Actually, just about every mouthful contains some poison. The water we drink contains poison. It all depends on the dose. Too much of almost anything will kill you. In fact, the amount of pesticide residue in the food we buy in the shops is very effectively controlled and is a minute proportion of the level which might be considered dangerous.
If we are really worried about ingesting poison, no one should ever drink coffee. If I may quote Sir John Krebs again, a single cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens equal to a year's worth of synthetic carcinogens in the diet.
240
I turn to organic farming, about which I have spoken previously. The commission recommends that we should spend more money on organic farming. To support organic farming is the apogee of political correctness and current fashion.
The commission states that there is evidence that organic farming is good for biodiversity. I should like to see what this evidence is. No such evidence was produced before the Select Committee of this House. Of course, many people take up organic farming because, admirably, they want to farm in an environmentally friendly way. If that is what people set out to do, it is not surprising that they succeed. But they do not have to go organic.
The Agricultural Research Institute testified to this House that integrated farming using conventional methods can have equally good environmental effects. The Game Conservancy Trust testified that the ecological case for organic farming had not been made out. It favours mixed farming systems, which are just as good for the environment, but at less cost and inconvenience.
The only thorough comparative study, carried out in Essex, shows that integrated crop management has better results for biodiversity, at much lower cost and using less energy. That is what the Government should support. The claims for organic farming have not been accepted by the Food Standards Agency, claims by the Soil Association have been rejected by the Advertising Standards Authority—which made it withdraw its recruiting leaflets—and its most recent claims were taken comprehensively apart in the January edition of Prospect by an eminent Fellow of the Royal Society.
Organic farming is based on the proposition that natural pesticides are good and synthetic ones are bad. It is "back to nature". In the days when our food was as natural as any organic farmer could possibly wish, people died like flies. It is voodoo science. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was quite right about the false distinction between natural and synthetic chemicals.
But what is perverse about giving public money to support organic farming is that its relative inefficiency means that organic produce costs more. Well, says the commission, it is worth paying more for quality. Leaving aside the fact that claims for better quality have not been substantiated, if the middle classes want to pay more for food, that is their concern. Incidentally, there is some evidence that demand for organic produce may have peaked. If so, the new organic farmers may find, as has happened with milk, that the price goes down and they produce at a loss. But what really matters is that those who are less well off—about whom my noble friend Lady Walmsley spoke—and who are, incidentally, less vocal and less influential, will suffer. They will buy fewer vegetables and less fruit.
There is a fundamental contradiction in part of the commission's report. It says that we must pay more for food. Yet it stresses how important it is to change the eating habits of those on lower incomes. Far the most important factor for them is price. Then, following fashion and political correctness, the commission

241
proposes to support the wrong kind of so-called green farming, which will put prices up. That means that more people will die. It is a triumph of unreason.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, reminds me of the motto of the Royal Agricultural Society of England: "Practice with Science". We have just heard a formidable statement on the science relating to food. I shall attempt to add a little practice—which I do with my farming interests.
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for providing this opportunity. It is appropriate that we debate food, particularly production and standards, and nutrition on the day after the publication of the Curry report and that the debate should concentrate on aspects of it.
The policy commission, under the chairmanship of Sir Don Curry, is to be congratulated on its work; and the scribes of the report should be congratulated on producing such a well-written document. The right reverend Prelate rightly said—in a maiden speech that we all enjoyed—that such a report makes us think again. It gives us an opportunity to reflect on some of the remarks that are made.
In today's world one has to be an optimist to be a farmer and a food producer. That is true whether one farms in the traditional sense, as we have been hearing about, whether one farms in a less intensive way, or whether one believes that there is a better future in a niche market by growing food organically or taking advantage of farmers' markets, as many are already doing.
One has to be a super-optimist to believe that the vision that is clearly set out in the report will turn into reality. The report states that good land management is now the core business. Is that new? Five generations of the Plumb family have operated on that basis; good husbandry is the basis of farming. Vision suggests that the industry is a good place to work for existing participants, a place where new entrants can build a career and that farming, which is valued by the wider public, has a real sense of purpose again.
That is a starry-eyed vision, but it is not in sight of reality. Nor is it reality to deliver in entirety the proposals for change, which are not new. Many of them, as Ministers know, have been on the books for the past two years and more, such as the proposals to reduce subsidies and replace them with a form of income-type support.
The report states that consumers have confidence in English food, that the market is diverse and that consumers in all income groups have access to a healthy and nutritious diet. It says that consumers can exercise choice through better labelling on all products and that they are health conscious and take a keen interest in what they eat. They know where their food comes from and how it was produced. Well, I wonder. If we were to ask the consumers walking around
242
outside the House where their breakfast, lunch or the food that they eat regularly comes from, I wonder how many would know.
I shall relate a story that happened only a short while ago. There was a lady in my dentist's waiting room when I arrived at 8.30 one morning. She was reading her morning newspaper, the front page of which said that genetically modified food could cause meningitis and it referred to Frankenstein food. She turned to me and asked, "What do you think of all this". Being the politician that I am, I said, "More importantly, Madam, what do you think". She immediately said, "None of us in our home would touch it". When I asked what her family ate, she said, "We only eat organic food. It is safe. I know who you are, and now I shall probably offend you because we do not have cows' milk in our home. We only have organically-produced soya milk". I said, "That's very interesting, Madam. Where does it come from?" "It's British", she said. I said, "You say that you know who I am, so please accept that we do not grow soya in Britain. It has to be imported. May I remind you that 112 million acres of land are currently planted with genetically modified seed, which is three times larger than the total area from which we produce food in the United Kingdom? Therefore, your soya milk must come from America, and if I may say so, you look jolly well on it". When I eventually sat on the dentist's chair, he was critical of the fact that the lady had upset him by criticising me throughout the operation.
I occasionally enjoy going to supermarkets to watch consumers' interests. My conclusion, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is that price is a major consideration. At the Meat and Livestock Commission conference yesterday, we were told by the chairman of Safeway's that 35 per cent of people buy food for pleasure; 12 per cent for health; and 32 per cent for convenience. Convenience will emerge as the growth sector. Food has to be ready-prepared; ready to heat; and ready to eat. He referred to the growing importance of and concern about imports, which is a major subject on its own. The Minister sent me a letter in answer to a question that I asked during our debate on the Animal Health Bill about the import of products from countries where foot and mouth disease exists or is endemic. Those countries include Botswana, Brazil, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. During the period from October 2000 to September 2001, 108,339 tonnes of meat were imported from those countries where the disease exists.
The vision could fade into oblivion if we continue to risk importing suspect products. I am by no means anti-import; naturally, I am very pro-export if we could have parity between the pound sterling and the euro. I hope that the Minister will press for fair play on the methods of production, especially from those importing countries and on quality assurance. Recent figures suggest that we are consuming £2.4 billion-worth of junk food in this country, which is 50 sizzlers a second, if we put it in those terms. That is more than France, Italy and Denmark put together.

243
We must develop a positive strategy for food and farming based on high standards. We need an integrated and transparent food chain, with farmers collaborating more to improve their position in the marketplace. New crop products must be developed in both the food and the non-food sectors.
The disappointment of yesterday's report is that through the modulation proposals, together with problems such as the nitrate Bill and other unnecessary measures, we shall be robbing Peter to pay Paul when the key objective should be to return British agriculture and rural businesses to profitability.
4.47 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, first, like many of your Lordships, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on his excellent maiden speech. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, told us something about his life and ministry, but I assure your Lordships that he comes of pedigree stock. His father was archdeacon in the diocese of Hereford and he himself was successively agricultural chaplain and archdeacon in the diocese of Hereford, Like any winner, I am sure that he will not mind my saying that he has been well bred and well trained. We look forward to his further speeches on rural affairs, and I very much welcome his companionship on these Benches.
The debate has led to a remarkable variety of speeches—on farming, nutrition, food science, food poverty, and, indeed, on the peril of eating anything at all. I am immensely relieved that this lunchtime I chose apple pie instead of the attractive-looking fruit salad, which included a surprisingly large proportion of raspberries. I am glad to say that monkey brain was not on the menu. I cannot help wondering how the friend of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, was able to speak while the dentist was operating on her.
I want to speak briefly on food production. Once upon a time there was a rural White Paper which said, among other things if one persevered to chapter 8, that farming was important, it supplied most of our food and that it would continue to be the bedrock of the UK food chain. Once upon a time seems the right way to put it, as that is the language of fairy tales and make-believe. For a long time that is what it seemed to be. We looked in vain for signs of real hope that flesh would be put on the skeletal bones of that praiseworthy principle that farming would continue to be the bedrock of the UK food chain.
Farming was already in crisis—deep crisis—when the rural White Paper appeared. Although some small crumbs of comfort were tossed to the farming community from time to time, the decline continued, sharply accentuated by classical swine fever and by foot and mouth. We desperately needed the fairy story to become reality. Like other noble Lords, I warmly welcome this debate, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing it—especially for the inclusion of the words, "proactive" and "sustainable", in a debate about food production policy.
244
There is a wonderful opportunity now for such a policy to be articulated and implemented. I strongly agree with the thrust of the recommendations of the excellent Curry report, especially its emphasis on re-connecting farming with the economy, the environment, and the market. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give indications that the Government do indeed intend to embrace the commission's recipe for proactive and sustainable food production.
Recent signs have been very uncertain, with distinctly mixed messages coming from DEFRA and from Ministers. An encouraging sign has been the new responsiveness to anxieties over GM crops, and the possible contamination of organic produce. It is good to hear of further analysis of test results, and more open public debate. GM crops could play a significant part in a UK food production programme and even be nutritionally beneficial. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, in that respect. However, there are many questions that remain to be answered, and many critics whose anxieties need to be addressed. It is also good to know that the noble Lord, Lord Whiny, recently indicated the likelihood of government support for a forum, or institute, to foster much bet ter co-operation in the food chain—to shorten it, and to bring farmers much closer, as they need to be, to their markets.
But there have also been many disappointments: the refusal of the Government even to attempt an aspirational target for the percentage of food that should be produced in the UK—the enormous proportion of food imported has already been mentioned in the debate—despite an obsessive concern with targets for schools and for NHS waiting-lists. Since llth September, I believe that food security has, once again, become a real issue in a way that it has not been for a long time. Yet, we have had no recognition of that fact. There is no government commitment to UK agriculture, or any indication of the proportion of food that the Government would like to see produced in this country. Nor have we, until now, had any sign of targeted support for organic farming; indeed, not for the dairy industry, even though organic dairy produce is already meeting market demands.
The Prince of Wales said to me this morning, "I can't get organic meat. [just can't get enough of it". There is still scope for more organic beef production and, above all, for much more organic fruit and vegetable production. Far too much food is still imported. I do not support organic food because it is nutritionally or environmentally better; I support it because of the available market that is not being met. Intelligent farmers ought to be meeting the market, and making some money out of it. I regret the recent decision on dubious financial grounds not to continue support for the UK-wide protected zone status for rhizomania, which puts at risk profitable sugar beet production—one of our few profitable crops. Although it has already been mentioned, perhaps I shall dare to mention again the hideous, ludicrously inadequate policy of placing a few notices at airports

245
as if they will deter the people who bring in potentially dangerous, diseased meat. We must have more safeguards.
There is real encouragement in the Curry report for the greening of farming. I warmly support increased modulation—I bow to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, because I know that he does not like it; but I think that it is right—provided that the money stays on the farm. I also support paying the farmer to deliver biodiversity and landscape benefits, which are urgently needed after 30 years of intensive farming, instead of having food surpluses that depress prices. So I wish to give a resounding yes to the Curry proposals for increasing environmental sustainability. But economic sustainability is far from being achieved. It must remain doubtful whether Curry can actually deliver.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is right: matters are still desperate. The environmental benefits can be achieved only if farmers can actually survive economically. The recent signs are not good: pig prices are down by another 2 pence a kilo, and milk prices are decreasing by nearly 2 pence a litre. Many producers are still abandoning the struggle. Indeed, more than 9,000 people left farming in the 12 months up to June of last year. The exodus continues. What about economic stability? That is not yet in sight.
A major conference is due to take place in Cambridge next month, entitled, "Does Britain actually have a food production policy?" Environmental policies, yes; countryside policies, yes; and food importing policies, yes. But a food producing policy? The jury is still out on that question.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as chairman of the All Party Food and Health Forum, I am more qualified to talk about the plate, or the consumption that takes place in the end, rather than about the plough, or conception, that takes place at the beginning of the food chain.
Chapter 5 of the very comprehensive Curry report mentions most of the important issues in the food and health debate (nearly all of which, incidentally, we have visited in the periodic meetings of the food and health forum). However, although the problems are mentioned, the means of solving them are only hinted at. I suggest that too much responsibility is given to the farming and food industries to achieve the suggested goals, and that too little help is suggested on the part of the Government. For instance, there are the excellent sounding suggestions in the report that,
"industry should establish a group to look at how it can play its part in encouraging good nutrition",
and that this group,
"must examine food advertising and how to encourage responsible advertising … working closely with the British Nutrition Foundation",
which, of course, is also funded by the food industry.
Although industry must eventually be the means of delivering the goods that we, the public, need and, one hopes, demand—which is rather different—the track
246
record of industry in initiating the changes that are required is, with a few notable exceptions, not very good. There is a need for both sticks and carrots from the Government side. An example of a carrot would be to help sway public demand, and hence the market, in the right direction, which industry would then surely follow. A further carrot might be to offer a small grant for planting fruit trees. After all, as I understand it, there used to be a grant for grubbing them out when the desirability of fruit for health was not so fully understood.
However, a stick might be to introduce regulations on the advertising of certain products on television—yes, I am sorry, regulations are sometimes necessary. Voluntary agreements on advertising, if we take the example of the tobacco industry, are not very effective. An example might be to stop the advertising of delectable products rich in sugar and fat, or salt and fat, on television at the times when children are most likely to be watching. The problem is that that period often extends to midnight, which suggests that advertising of some products might have to be banned altogether. I am sure that many parents would welcome this, but perhaps a step-by-step policy would be more acceptable.
At the risk of again trotting out a hobby-horse, I consider that although the report mentions the importance of good nutrition for health, the extent to which faulty nutrition contributes to our most prevalent chronic diseases is insufficiently emphasised. A parallel recent report, entitled, Why Health is the Key to the Future of Food and Farming, edited by Tim Lang and Geof Rayner, and supported by the Health Development Agency, gives some interesting statistics. It shows that the World Health Organisation, for example, has established that in developed market economies diet-related diseases—as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, in much greater detail than my list—are responsible for 35 per cent of disability adjusted life years. That is quite a difficult concept; they are called DALY's, and they represent the sum of years of life lost in early death, together with years of life lost through disability. However, diarrhoeal diseases, including Salmonella, campylobacter, E. coil, and so on, are responsible for 0.2 per cent only of the DALY's lost, which reflects the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
About one third of deaths and disabilities due to cardiovascular disease and cancer are attributable to poor diet. As those are two of the commonest causes of premature death and disability, it is possible to calculate that about 10 per cent of all death and disability is due to poor diet. That is 50 times the number of DALYs due to microbiological or chemical contamination of food, which tends to lead to brief disability, and only very rarely to death.
At present, political and media interest is much more likely to be focused on food safety, especially if it is presented in wonderfully dramatic terms, as it was by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. Avoiding the contamination of food arouses much more interest than the less dramatic but far greater problem of reducing our burden of chronic serious disease due to

247
faulty nutrition. It is interesting that during the passage of the legislation creating the Food Standards Agency, the Government declined to include "nutrition" in the statement of objectives of the FSA, despite strenuous efforts in both Houses. It is to the credit of Sir John Krebs and the board of the FSA that research into and the promotion of good nutrition nevertheless forms part of its activities. However, I was surprised to learn that nutrition accounts for only 5 per cent of its budget. The Department of Health also has a budget for the promotion of good nutrition, but, combined with local authorities' budgets, the total official expenditure on nutrition is a diminutive David compared with the Goliath of the food industry, whose budget for food advertising is almost £600 million.
In a speech of this length, I can only chip at the edges of this complex issue, in which at least four departments of state are directly involved, with many others less directly. I should like the policy commission that produced the wide-ranging Curry report to be made permanent, or replaced by a more permanent commission that does not necessarily have the same personnel. Its proposals could then be fleshed out in more detail, with its co-ordinating role retained. A government policy could be developed from that. I am sure that the word "health" should be firmly incorporated in the title of any future policy on farming and food. For why do we grow, produce, buy, cook and eat food other than to enjoy and sustain our life and good health?
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred to the supplementation of bread with folic acid in the United States. I know that the Government have been considering that for some time to help prevent neural tube defects (spina bifida). It has recently been shown that folic acid is one of the most important ingredients of good food—fruit and vegetables and nuts in particular—needed to prevent cardiovascular disease. It has been estimated that approximately 8 per cent of deaths from cardiovascular disease could be prevented by the supplementation of all flour with folic acid.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, while preparing for the debate I mentioned to one of my noble friends—who is not here tonight—the high propensity of shoppers to buy uniform, ready-prepared products, particularly out-of-season foods. I instanced the humble swede, which is in season now, but which I would not eat in the summer. Initially I was shocked by her reply that most people do not know whether swedes, parsnips or strawberries have a season—they cost more at particular times of the year, but otherwise they are available all year round. As a gardener, I was considerably shocked by that, but it made me think that many changes are necessary if we are to interest people in buying and eating locally produced food.
First, I agree with my noble friend Lady Walmsley that we have to start with education on what is available. what is in season and the relative economics of the food chain. That includes information on how much the producer receives, how to prepare food and how to buy food so that wholesome feeding becomes
248
the norm and we move away from the high-salt, high-cholesterol, high-fat diet to which we have become accustomed. What place does that have in our national curriculum? I want to be assured that political correctness—ideas that boys must not learn about cooking or girls should do physics—has not played a part in moving the agenda away from the home economics to which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred.
We want to know a lot more about products so that we can be much more knowledgeable purchasers. Creating a knowledgeable, educated market demands attention from our schools, our newspapers and the television and demands a budget to explain the good case, as opposed to the large amount of money that is spent on promoting the less good case. I recently went to a school in Oxford that had sent the children out to buy sandwiches from various outlets. In a laboratory, they took the sandwiches apart and revealed to the children how much money they were laying out for what was essentially a convenience food and how they could get much more nourishment fora lot less money.
We have to help the consumer gain access to the right food. Most food comes from supermarkets. We are right to promote alternatives such as farmers' markets, but first each supermarket should stock: and display at least some healthy, and hopefully locally sourced, food, which must be honestly marketed. We have to arrive at a system under which food produced in Britain—not just packaged here—is marked clearly. The Government need to do something about that.
I went into my local supermarket on Saturday and was given a choice of leeks. There were good English leeks in one corner, covered in mud, and there were Turkish leeks, which were neatly packaged and beautifully white. I do not know what: process they had been through. I imagine that most people bought the Turkish leeks, not the English ones. because the English ones were not properly marketed by either the supermarket or whoever had produced them in the first place.
We should help to increase the number of farmers' markets and small shops through better organisation. Reference has been made to the increase in the number of farmers' markets, but in most places they occur only once a month. Any producer has to know that a regular, substantial market is available for his produce. If it is not there all the time, he will not produce for it. We should also remember the advantage that accrues to other shops from having a good healthy market in a town. Winchester has 30 per cent more business in its other shops on days when it has a farmers' market. If such markets are well organised, they bring people into the town, but they are a minority occupation and do not happen very often.
I am asking for real education in schools, on television and in newspapers and I am asking for pressure to be put on supermarkets to display their products and market them honestly.
Finally, I should like more effort to go into farmers' markets and small shops and into proper co-operatives such as exist in France, where people band together to

249
market their produce. The Government move in a curious way to bring about such developments. We have allowed larger lorries on our roads, mostly at the behest of people who move food such as grain or potatoes in large quantities. Depots are then closed, because the bigger lorries go further and the food travels further with them. We do not take any account of the cost, and nor do we factor in the fact that the lorries do not pay their proper costs in the first place.
We are being called on now to allow much greater airport access. The call is made in the guise of defeating foreign competition, but in fact greater access would mean that more food from further afield will be brought in. It will continue to feed our whole objectionable chain.
5.10 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on achieving this debate. I am not sure whether he regards it as his good fortune or bad fortune that it has fallen on the day after Sir Don Curry's report on the future of food and farming. I am afraid that, inevitably, some of us find that focus slightly hard to avoid.
To answer satisfactorily the theme that the noble Lord has given us is bound to be a major challenge. We live in an age of incredible change from the century that went before. The nature of production has changed, the nature of communication has changed, the nature of science and medicine has changed, and even the nature of war has changed, as we were reminded not so very long ago. But it is still the prime responsibility of government to provide for the food, health and security of their population. Today, we are being asked to identify the criteria that should be used to achieve that responsibility in the future. We all know when it is not being achieved in the present.
As I have said before, I have been immersed in the farming industry for most of my life, and I still am. Sir Don Curry's report talks about farming becoming connected to the market and also about the removal of all production subsidies. In his recent study, A policy for agriculture, Sir Richard Packer has as his guiding principle,
"prices should be allowed to find their own level according to supply and demand".
Such a proposition, of course, is built on the premise that, with the world's modern communications, we will know when there is a drought in the United States, a surplus in South America or a flood in India. We also expect to be able to ship boatloads of the requisite commodity freely across the oceans to wherever it is needed and we can find someone to pay for it. However, rather as the Government need to decide the correct strength for our Armed Forces, in view of our current alliances and joint commitments, and rather like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford was saying, I believe that the Government should have a similar approach to food. The Government need to know the minimum level of home-based food
250
production that should be maintained to ensure security in the event that there is a problem attaining it or, in a case of severe shortage, paying for it.
One aspect of that issue is the question of whether we regard the European Union as our base unit simply because it is the level at which major policy decisions are taken, or whether we would be prepared to examine our national production levels in terms of self-sufficiency. Yesterday, we heard the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, say that he was worried that he might have to introduce a Stalinist plan specifying that 79.3 per cent of our production should be for home consumption. I merely contend that the Government should have some idea of how far they are prepared to go with a structure that encourages cheap imports against home production.
Office for National Statistics figures for 2000 show that the total value of UK agricultural production is £15,000 million. However, to satisfy our market, we currently require imports of additional food to the value of £17,000 million. As my noble friend Lord Plumb was hinting, there is some compensation in that we export in turn more than £8,000 million of our best quality product. Considering the strength of the pound against the euro, I wonder whether there is a lesson there for us. People in those markets are prepared to pay more than we do for food, and they are not embarrassed about it. Those exports are the price leader for our home market.
Most of Europe is having to cope with an entirely new currency. We in this country have had recently to accept only one innovation—the £2 coin. Your Lordships are undoubtedly aware that some thoughtful person has inscribed around the edge of that coin the sobering quotation from Sir Isaac Newton,
"standing on the shoulders of giants".
Anyone involved in farming and food production with the least sense of history realises that we are standing on the shoulders of giants. The countryside has been nurtured and shaped to facilitate food production and what we know as rural life. The Curry report is asking us to adopt an entirely new emphasis. In much of the country, one is conscious of the gigantic infrastructure that has been built up: men with horses have cleared boulders, piled stones and built walls; men with picks and shovels have built ditches to bring water to the land; and men have dug great trenches over the whole landscape for drainage to take the water away. Any policy that is based on providing environmental benefits such as has been suggested in the report will have to be robust enough to ensure that much of that infrastructure is retained, especially if a policy of environmentally friendly or organic production is to be adopted. Much of that work is a capital asset that does not appear on any balance sheet, and recently the Government have put a great deal of money into it. It would be foolish to let it go to waste without heed.
The Curry report is definitely blue-skies thinking. It is full of some new schemes, some old schemes, and numerous new quangos. Press reports seem to suggest

251
that implementing the report would cost £500 million over three years. I noticed that Ben Gill of the National Farmers Union says that it will cost farmers £138 million. Perhaps he is simply quantifying the increase in modulation from 4.5 per cent to 10 per cent, as suggested in the report, although I do not have the facts to back that up. However, as most of that presumably will come under the second pillar of EU support, and if the Government can persuade Brussels to increase our allocation sufficiently, will the direct cost to the UK Government be only £250 million?
Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, I should also like to ask the Minister whether the Government are prepared to undertake a scheme of that nature, if that is the type of financial commitment that is required. As those involved in agriculture and food production seem on the face of it to be threatened with that type of penalty, they would clearly like to know a great deal more about how the payments for environmental benefit might be structured. Their experience with the current, competitive system has not been a happy one. I also noticed that the Government would like to obtain greater flexibility in how modulated funds are used. That gives rise to the question of how much of the money would be soaked up by consultative and advisory bodies and so on.
Until we know the answers to those questions, the Curry report will be just another government publication that is likely to gather dust, along with the rural White Paper and others. If we are given some assurances today, the suggestions can be given serious consideration.
5.17 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, what an interesting debate this is proving to be. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who—in the wake of the report of Sir Don Curry on food and farming—has selected a very appropriate day to introduce it.
I declare several interests. I am the wife of a farmer and take an active part in caring for our livestock. I am a specialist cheese maker and chairman of Honest Food. Above all, I am interested in growing, preparing and eating food. I am also a regular partaker of the "healthy option" in the Bishops Bar in the House of Lords. All the produce from our farm is sold either from our small shop or at farmers' markets.
I must make the point that it is not government policy that produces food; it is by the individual and corporate efforts of people that we are fed. I have looked for a definition of "sustainable government policy" on various department websites. None is available. I suspect that that may be because there is no such thing. Governments change, Ministers change, and their policies seem to change with them. There is not much sustainable about that. I did find an old MAFF definition for "sustainable agriculture". The definition was written in February 2000. Only part of it applies to this debate, and I shall not quote it here.
We need a diversity of food production for our countryside if our countryside is to flourish and the now accepted consumer demand for wide choice is to
252
be satisfied. We have the capability of producing the very best meat and dairy products in the world. Our land and climate are ideally suited for this type of production. Consumers, when asked, say they prefer to buy British produce in order to support British farmers. They rightly ask that the food be produced to the highest quality and welfare standards. Our farmers play their part. What happens? When it comes to the crunch, the vast majority of consumers buy on price.
To most of the British eating is merely a means of refuelling. Unlike our continental cousins who treat a meal as a pleasurable social occasion, we tend to shovel down the most convenient foods available, more frequently on the hoof than round the family dining table, and with little regard for their gourmet qualities and less for their nutritional content.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is so right about education. I was brought up knowing the mineral and vitamin contents of most foods and I was taught how to cook them, and much do I appreciate that later in my life.
The supermarket buyers have squeezed our producers on price until they squeak. Last week I talked to a group of dairy farmers. Not one of their sons wants to follow them into farming and, with the latest cuts in their milk cheques, they will all give up dairy farming this summer. Do I really need to ask where our milk will eventually come from if we go on like this? The climate is the same in all livestock and horticultural businesses. Farmers and growers have struggled for years to make a living. They love the land and they love the life. Many have now thrown in the towel and I fear that many more will do so in the very near future. They, too, are consumers and they, too, have to eat.
In order to preserve a variety of food production and to maintain rural livelihoods, food production in some form must be at the heart of the countryside. As well as large businesses, small arid medium-sized farming and associated enterprises must be encouraged to remain. They do not need special deals from the Government. There is a market for their produce, and survive they would if the Government and consumer organisations did not regard them as people who have to be regulated within an inch of t heir existence. It is important that Ministers and enforcement officers recognise that regulation should be there to help producers, not make their lives difficult. Regulators, producers and consumers all have the same objective: a varied, safe and high quality food production emanating from a clean, safe and attractive environment. Producers and consumers agree on this. I sometimes wonder about the regulators who, after all, carry all the power.
We are asked to call attention to food standards. Farmers and producers have been conned into joining the "little red tractor" scheme on the understanding that produce bearing the logo will be British. Di.d no one tell Sir Don Curry and his colleagues, who have given such a strong plug to this vehicle in yesterday's report, that the little tractor does nothing of the sort? It can denote only that the goods have been produced

253
to British farm standards. It could be French cheese, Argentinian beef or New Zealand lamb. I agree with Sir Don that there should be some way of demonstrating to the consumer who buys from a supermarket that the produce is British. However, he and we somehow have to overcome the strictures imposed upon us by the European Union and the World Trade Organisation. We are not allowed to trade unfairly, and to state that a product is produced to British standards is said to be unfair.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also wishes us to draw attention to nutrition. We are discussing the food chain. The nutritional quality of our food depends upon the quality of the soil upon which crops are grown. These are the crops on which we and our meat animals feed. It has always puzzled me that farmers and vets fairly quickly recognise deficiencies in copper, selenium, magnesium, boron and other trace elements in crops and animals. If the animals suffer deficiencies, surely we must too. The Finns have placed selenium compulsorily in their fertilisers for many years. If the soil is right, we shall be right. Will the Minister arrange for some research to be conducted into the whole of the food chain from the nutrition in the soil right the way through to the vitamins and minerals in which adult humans are deficient?
We are also getting mixed messages about food. I have just heard the noble Lord, Lord Chan, talk about dreadful animal fats and how they must be reduced. Yet on the radio—I believe that it was last Sunday—I heard how good animal fats are and how bad for us are all these polyunsaturates and God knows what. So please can we have some straightforward messages?
Of course, we must recognise that food policy, food production. food standards and health and safety are all now governed by EU legislation. This will be a strange message coming from me. We may complain about this but, as has been observed on many occasions, our Government apply this legislation most stringently. What is true is that the UK Government policy can operate only within the strictures ordained by Brussels. All our discussions of what is and is not government policy must take into account political reality. I should, therefore, like to ask the Minister to tell us how the Government see EU policy developing and how the Government interpret that policy. Do we have any leeway? Do they fight the British corner as strongly as we hear that our partners fight for their countries?
5.25 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is becoming increasingly fashionable, sadly, to "knock" farming. We have a government who do not understand the countryside. Indeed, yesterday, the Prime Minister in welcoming the Curry report said with regard to agriculture that the present situation benefits no one. That is a sad reflection on many good farmers who
254
farm in a sustainable way and have moved a long way from the condemned position in which they have been put.
People are apologising for farmers now. I am reminded of the words of that great poet, Robert Burns. It is appropriate to quote him today as we are only about three or four days past his anniversary. I hope that the Minister celebrated that anniversary in true style on Friday night. Burns wrote:
"I'm truly sorry Man's dominion
Has broken Nature's social union".
That phrase seems to be incorporated in part in the Curry report. I do not apologise for farmers in any way at all. It is also stated in the Curry report that farming ought to reflect what the public want. That is exactly what farming has been doing for the past 50 years. Sadly, farmers are now in the position of being condemned for that.
There are other things wrong with the Curry report. Sadly, one of the effects of devolution is that the report refers only to England. Surely in this small country of ours we cannot just have a little regional report. If we are to have little regional reports on matters as important as health, farming and hygiene, I hope to goodness that the Government are talking about them to the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish.
However, the matter is more important than that. I pick up the theme mentioned by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. England is a bit player—in itself the UK is a bit player—within the European Union. All the grandiose ideas as regards where farming in this country can go are absolutely irrelevant if we do not change the CAP. Nothing in the Curry report gives any indication of what we should do if his ideals are not realised and if we do not get what we want in Europe. That conundrum has faced governments for many years. The Curry report is one of those well intentioned reports that governments bring out from time to time—indeed, I was a member of a government who brought out a number of reports on agriculture—which gather dust. Some lie in deeper layers of dust than others. We really cannot move until Europe, and in particular the US, change their farming practices. We are a pawn on the board that gets moved around very much at their will.
I also fear that the Curry report will perpetuate an increasing trend of raising standards to incredibly high and, perhaps it might be argued, good levels in this country while not in other countries. That will continue to put our farmers at a disadvantage. Here I pick up a theme mentioned by my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior on the question of imports. It is hopeless to try to raise standards in this country, to set ourselves targets that other countries do not meet but nevertheless to import their food—and not just their food, but their polluted food. My noble friend Lord Plumb referred to meat coming in from countries where there is foot and mouth disease. When will the Government get to grips with that particular item? I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is present. He will remember the debate we had the other day when many of us mentioned that point.

255
There is a good proactive recommendation in the Curry report about establishing a permanent food chain centre. That is good, provided that one gets rid of all the other little quangos that are trying to do much the same job. We should not simply put another quango and more bureaucracy into the system. If one is going to follow that recommendation—it is a good idea, which many of us would support—we should get rid of all the other garbage that is currently around.
I turn briefly to a subject that has not yet been mentioned; that is, fish farming. The demand for fish has increased enormously throughout the world and fish farming is the fastest-growing sector in the food production chain. What are the Government's thoughts on that? Are they concerned about the stocking densities of fish farms in Scotland in particular and of trout farms in England and Norway? Are they concerned about the level of disease and about escaped fish, which are affecting our wild stocks?
We have been encouraged to buy and consume more fish but we do not really know where the fish comes from, what it has been raised on or what it is. I gather that due to fish farming, the level of fat in fish has increased enormously. We may think that we are buying something good but we might be buying something had. I support what my noble friend Lord Plumb said: we do not know what we are eating. I also support many of the comments made about labelling and education with regard to food.
We are well over our allotted budgeted time, so I shall not make the other points that I had prepared. I hope that the Government will not rush ahead too quickly with the Curry report.
5.31 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, our debate this afternoon has lived up to everything that we on these Benches had hoped for in terms of its extent and the subjects raised. We have often debated food production and farming in your Lordships' House but always from the plough end—at least, that is true since I came to this House. This is the first debate for many years that encompasses the matter from the plate, as it were.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, asked whether it was good or bad fortune to have this debate the day after the publication of the Curry report. We knew that that report would appear at the end of January, and the timing of this debate involved planned good fortune; we did not know that we would have this debate the day after the report's publication.
I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on his wonderful maiden speech. We are aware of the crises that agriculture has been through and, as he said, of the fact that crises cause us to think again. It was for that reason that we were anxious to have this debate.
We appreciate the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, at this debate. We feel that too often health and food production have been disconnected. The theme of the Curry report was reconnection. We are glad that both Ministers are in their place.
256
Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, whom I congratulate warmly on introducing this debate, referred to the place of food in history. First, there was too little food, then there was too little of the right food. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley, referred to diseases that are now re-appearing. They are re-appearing because we have too much of the wrong food. The effect of that is very similar to the effect of having too little of the right food.
The UK National Diet and Nutritional Survey bears out many of the points that were made this afternoon, particularly those about children. Nearly all children-92 per cent of them—are eating far too much saturated fat, and 83 per cent eat far too much sugar.
We have discussed cheap food and what "cheap" means. Per household, we spend less on food as a proportion of income. In 1963, we spent nearly 20 per cent of our income on food but today the figure is 9.7 per cent. We should compare that with the situation in other countries. Noble Lords mentioned France and the attitude to food there. We may have to be prepared to spend a higher proportion of our income on food and less on those items that supermarkets wish us to buy in addition to food. Some of the savings that we make in our spending on rood are spent on items that we may regard as being less essential, such as flowers, for example, which are prominently displayed in supermarkets but which do not contribute much to our actual health—although they may contribute to our spiritual health.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley said that our view of food was an attitude of mind—a cultural attitude. The French and Italians have managed to retain that to a much greater degree than we have. Food is central to their cultures. One can see the benefits of that in terms of tourism, for example. When we discuss tourism and the countryside—we have often clone so—we return to the fact that food is a central issue in that regard. On the other hand, we have discussed the need for food to be cheap and for processed food to have its rightful place. We have not entirely resolved that debate this afternoon but we have had a good crack at some of the surrounding issues.
I turn to the reconnection of food and schools, which many noble Lords have discussed. The food that is served in schools should be good and decent. The Government have taken some steps along those lines. As has been said, they introduced free fruit for four to six year-olds, which is a start. They have also introduced a "five-a-day" scheme for everyone, although it is being promoted in schools in particular; that, too, is a good thing.
We have not addressed the fact that schools, particularly those in the secondary sector, have vending machines or the fact that increasing parts of the curriculum are sponsored by groups that are trying to promote foods that we should certainly not consider healthy. I refer to the usual examples: McDonald's, Walkers Crisps and Coca-Cola. If we accept t hat we do

257
not want children to eat more of those foods, why do the names of those producers appear constantly in front of schoolchildren on teaching materials?
On school meals, the Government brought in new nutritional guidelines in June 2000. They said at that time that when the new standards had settled down, they would undertake an evaluation of school meals using sample school surveys. I ask the Minister in particular whether there has been any monitoring since the new regulations came into force and, if so, when are the Government going to conduct their promised survey?
As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw pointed out, schools can play a valuable part in enabling children to understand where food comes from and recognise the important issue of seasonality. Children need to appreciate where their food comes from in order to understand basic facts about it.
Young adults are equally badly served at the moment. They do not have much money, they do not know how to cook and they often suffer difficult living conditions when they first move out of the home. They therefore resort to fast food and processed food for entirely understandable reasons. I tabled a Written Question, HL 1758, asking the Government whether they were,
"content with the level of knowledge about food and nutrition gained at school by children up to the age of 16".
The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, replied:
"Twenty-six per cent of pupils were entered for … (food) GCSEs". [Official Report, 11/12/01; col. WA 190]
However, that is not the same thing because GCSEs cover very few practical aspects. Moreover, the figure means that 75 per cent of children still have no knowledge of that area.
However, the answer given by the noble Lord. Lord Hunt, was a little more encouraging. When I asked him a similar question, he said that the Government were considering launching a campaign to promote healthy eating among young adults. Perhaps I may strongly encourage him to do so and to pursue the matter with all vigour.
I now turn to the issues raised by noble Lords in relation to food deserts, where there is a lack of local shops selling any type of food. In such areas, people have to travel much further to their local superstores. The distance travelled rose from 14 kilometres in 1986 to 22 kilometres in 1996. That is the last date for which I have a figure, but I suspect that since that date the distance has again increased greatly. That information relates to the distance travelled by humans simply in order to obtain food. It does not take account of "food miles"—a subject which I shall not go into but which has been referred to already.
The issue of the number of "human miles" travelled to obtain food is serious. The people who already suffer from an unhealthy diet are those who also suffer from having to take a bus to obtain the food or are perhaps those who buy food which is much less fresh. It is certainly an important matter.
258
At this point, I declare an interest as chairman of Somerset Food Link. I believe that the food link organisations throughout Britain do a very good job in highlighting such points. They map food deserts, encourage farmers' markets and produce lists of the places where people can buy good, wholesome food directly and, therefore, more cheaply. Those should all be encouraged. Perhaps the noble Lord will find out how many health authorities are joining in with that initiative. I am pleased to say that our health authority in Somerset has been most proactive. I hope that the primary care trusts will take a similar interest.
Finally, I turn to the issue of the precautionary principle. Niall FitzGerald, chairman of Unilever, in a speech sponsored by Sainsbury's at the City Food Lecture, asked whether we would prefer the precautionary principle or a plate of fish and chips. Unilever, and I believe Sainsbury's, prefer the plate of fish and chips. It is the Government's job to prefer the precautionary principle. They must do so and they must enable others who are interested in it to do so, too.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, nothing that I have heard today has given me cause to question the depths of my concern on this issue. In the 10 minutes available to me, I want to share some thoughts with the House. As other noble Lords have said, we have heard wide-ranging contributions on subjects that include eating habits, especially the issues that influence the eating habits of children, and the eating habits that affect us in later life. We have heard about farmers' markets, diversity, conventional, organic and integrated farming, farming links within the community, the price which determines purchasing, bureaucracy at all levels, and labelling. Those are some of the issues to which I shall add.
A matter that has not been touched on is food and tourism. Tourism plays an important part in our daily lives. I believe that there is great scope to link the food framework with the tourism sector in a manner that would benefit both.
We all know, and have known ever since farming incomes went into free-fall, that the CAP must be refashioned, if not scrapped completely. We all know that bringing about a major change in the European institutions requires a lot of time and concerted action by all major players. We all know that reform of the CAP has not attracted uniform support from our European allies. We need a food policy that is workable within the CAP as it is and adaptable to the CAP as we should like it to be.
For the past three years it has been obvious that the decline in agricultural incomes is more or less permanent. The decreasing share of the gross domestic product taken by agriculture is, in part, due to the fall in farm-gate prices. Before we can have a proactive and sustainable policy on food production, food standards and nutrition, I believe that a number of basic factors must be put right.

259
As other noble Lords have said, food is an essential part of life. We must continue to produce it. Our farmers must receive a fair reward for their work. Milk prices at less than the minimum cost of production are not a fair reward. Process and welfare improvements further down the food chain costed back to the farmer are not a fair reward. Unfettered imports of goods produced in welfare and environmental circumstances forbidden here are not a fair reward.
Having produced the food, we must ensure that the farmer has access to a market with which he is in touch. As things stand, food is transported, with very few rules, throughout the country to abattoirs and packers, to canning factories, freezer plants and distribution centres, and to ports, catering establishments and shops. The chain is long. Fruit and vegetables are produced to ripen early and are often sprayed in order to be kept green. They are sold in and out of season. In many cases, the link with the primary producer is non-existent.
The distances travelled by livestock, meat and meat products, dairy products, beer, bread and vegetables must be shortened. The only way to achieve that is by requiring all food outlets above a certain size to provide a minimum space for locally produced foods. I am confident that if outlets were to take on that challenge, farmers would be able to supply them. I am aware that some of the more recent changes—for example, the closure of abattoirs—will have to be reversed. But I am sure that, if the market is assured, private funding will be available.
Many noble Lords have spoken about the additional labelling rules which will be necessary. Indeed, it is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is responding to the debate. He will well remember that when the Food Standards Bill passed through this House, the one issue that I and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, kept to the fore was the need for food labelling to be put on to the face of the Bill. We are truly thankful that the Government eventually gave way. When consumers buy food, they must have correct guidance.
It is possible that supermarkets and catering establishments will have to borrow for their food shelves and menus the system which is used, for example, in selling drinks, particularly wine. Why cannot we have in shops chill cabinets containing meat, eggs, bacon and sausages, for example, with a sign stating "English", "Welsh", "French", "South African", "South American"—
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, "Scottish"—
Baroness Byford: And "Scottish", my Lords, not forgetting, indeed, the many regions.
A fourth basic element which I believe we need to examine is research into standards, nutritional values, pesticides and antibiotics. I warmly endorse the recommendations of the Curry report concerning the need to co-ordinate, focus and prioritise research within government and among the various industry bodies. Research affects every aspect of food production.
260
At this point, let us remember our fishing industry, which my noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned. It is, indeed, an important aspect of food production and it is a growing sector. The fishing industry has a great responsibility both at sea and in relation to fish farming. However, it seems that there is a great deal of conflict between what happens in the depths and what happens to the fish that we stock and upon which we rely.
The four basic elements to which I have referred are those without which no policy will work: fair rewards; access to local markets; full and unambiguous labelling; and focused research. I hope that noble Lords will agree that none of those needs to be hampered by the CAP as it stands at present, nor should they obstruct future reforms.
I hope that the Minister agrees that the Government should accept responsibility for the implementation of their own policies. The farmer's job is to produce food; it is the Government's job to ensure that that food is up to standard, in constant and adequate supply, and available without unfair competition from other quarters.
Today's debate has been interesting and informative. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for giving us a subject so fundamental to the well-being of the country. I particularly congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich—if I say to him that I was at Southwold this weekend, he will know that I was not far away—on an excellent maiden speech in which he twinned the importance of farming and the local community.
I stress to the Minister and the Government the serious content of today's debate. As my noble friend, Lord Plumb, said, we need to make a vision —I believe that some of the recommendations of Sir Don Curry are a vision—into reality. The only way that that can happen is by the Government taking action. It is time to move forward and not to keep consulting. If we do not move forward, producers, and indeed consumers, will suffer in consequence. 1 end by quoting the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who we are pleased to see in support of the debate today. I was delighted when he said, in response to the Statement yesterday:
"We shall not succeed as a food and farming industry unless profits can be made in the industry and unless the industry has a prosperous future".—[Official Report, 29/01/02; col. 121.] I totally agree.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, 16 minutes are left to me in this time-limited debate. I shall try to cover as many as possible of the points raised. If I do not cover some points, I shall follow them up and write to noble Lords.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in instituting what has been, on any count, an excellent debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, stated, it seems inevitable in your Lordships' House that debates about food have almost always focused attention on

261
food production, land use issues and the undoubted pressures which farmers are under at present. It is useful to have had a much wider debate which takes into account the responsibilities of my department in relation to the Food Standards Agency and food and health policies more generally.
We have also had drawn to our attention the impact of the difficulties of the farming industry on rural areas in general. I particularly commend the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on an excellent and insightful maiden speech. We certainly look forward to his contributions in future.
The Curry report, the commission's thinking about farming and the relationship of food to the consumer, goes very much to the heart of our debate. The commission speaks of a disconnection between supplier, processor and retailer, and in many cases of confrontational relationships and poor communications. Curry says that food is plentiful and sold at prices that are historically low. However, despite that, consumers are uneasy and are concerned about the wholesomeness and safety of the food they eat, and feel disconnected from what they eat and how it is produced.
In addition to consumers' fears about food safety, Curry points to poor nutritional standards and says that we are storing up health problems, with people eating too much of the wrong food and not enough of the right food. That suggests to me the pressing need to ensure that an holistic approach is taken to food production, food standards and nutrition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out. We need an approach that undoubtedly puts the consumer first; that ensures that food is safe to eat; that there is a choice of foods to allow an enjoyable and healthy diet; that food is of good quality; and, last but not least, that it is reasonably priced.
I believe that the future of the food and farming industry must lie in ensuring that those expectations are met. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, that responsibility rests with industry, but government, too, have a major role to play in ensuring that the conditions are right for industry to play its part, just as government have a role to play in relation to food safety and nutrition.
I believe that we have the right infrastructure in place. As my noble friend Lady Thornton said, we took action when we came into government to establish the Food Standards Agency to be an independent voice within government, able to give advice and publish it without first asking politicians. I believe that the agency has started its work well. Curry says some complimentary things about its performance. As my noble friend Lady Thornton said, it is setting new benchmarks for standards of openness and transparency in carrying out its role. In so doing, that will lead to greater confidence among consumers about food in this country. That confidence is one of the planks which will lead to better conditions for our farming industry generally.
262
In terms of enforcement, the agency has developed a new framework agreement with local authorities to promote high and consistent standards of enforcement throughout the UK. That was one of the issues we debated when we established the Food Standards Agency. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, in a graphic speech, drew our attention to the dangers of fruit picking and urine coming together. He made some serious points about food-borne disease in this country. Certainly, the agency and the Government are exercised about the need to tackle that. The agency has a strategy which I believe has been well trailed. It is designed around promoting best practice, enforcement of legislation, publicity, training and education. But clearly, from what has been said in this debate, it is important that the agency gives all due attention to ensuring that that strategy is, indeed, implemented.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, all raised issues in relation to labelling. I certainly agree with the thrust of the points they made. We are a committed supporter of informed consumer choice. Because of that, we are pressing for amendments to EU labelling rules to require origin labelling on a wider range of foods, particularly meat and meat products; to require origin labelling for certain ingredients of food, particularly meat and dairy products, and to define and control the use of words such as "produce of". The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made a telling point about her concern that at times consumers are unaware of where a product comes from.
The issue of labelling also extends to nutrition labelling. My noble friend Lady Thornton quoted the experience of the Co-operative Retail Society, which is a good example. The Food Standards Agency is pressing for EU rules requiring compulsory nutrition labelling on all foods to help those who want to follow healthy eating advice.
The issue of animal welfare is also important. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, speaks with great authority on those matters. I and the Government agree with the points he makes about reducing the distance travelled by animals to centralised slaughter plants. We believe that there is a serious animal welfare issue here and we very much support the thrust of what he said. He then raised the issue of the illegal importation of "bush meat", a subject which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford also discussed. We are actively taking forward a range of initiatives aimed at improving our ability to prevent and detect illegal imports of animal products. We are stepping up those checks. We are ensuring greater publicity at ports and airports, and information for travellers into the UK. Intelligence gathering has also been improved, together with ensuring better awareness of the problem on the part of Customs and local authority officers at ports and airports.
The noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Clement-Jones, raised the issue of pesticides. The Food Standards Agency believes that consumers should be able to purchase and consume with confidence foods

263
produced with the use of pesticides. We do not object to the use of pesticides, as long as any residues are kept as low as practically possible, consistent with good practice, and do not pose a threat to health.
I turn to nutrition. The link between nutrition and health is important. We have heard from a number of noble Lords about the connection between poor food habits and public health issues.
We know that a person's diet is one of the greatest influences on their risk of developing cancer or heart disease. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, referred to that. The NHS Plan sets out the Department of Health's commitment for improving diet with action by 2004.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, had some very interesting suggestions to make in relation to encouraging people to make choices about what to eat. We cannot go back to the rationing which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, described so aptly. It must be done from a basis of ensuring that information is available and that, wherever people live, there is proper access to healthy food. I can point to many examples where initiatives are being taken to enable that to happen. For example, many of our health action zones have projects dedicated to improving access to healthier diets. These range from creating food delivery services in neighbourhoods where healthy food was not available to teaching cooking skills to young mothers.
I have listened carefully to the points made about schools. It is significant that 25 per cent of pupils taking or studying the food technology GCSE are boys. It is not the only issue of course. But I know that my 13 year-old son was taught cooking last year at school and 11 have certainly enjoyed the benefits of that.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the efforts to encourage the "five-a-day" programme to increase the consumption of fruit and vegetables, and the National School Fruit Scheme. Recently, I announced the launching of that scheme in the West Midlands. The New Opportunities Fund has made £42 million available to support further phases of the pilot scheme from now until 2004. I am very keen on those schemes because they have the potential to increase demand for fruit and vegetables. I hope that the farming community in this country will be able to take on that challenge and increase the production of fruit in England to meet demand and that it will stem the current decline in vegetable production.
So far as concerns obesity, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is absolutely right to point to the National Audit Office report. Healthy diets are clearly an important step in tackling obesity, although I would also argue that exercise, and particularly encouraging young people in schools to do sports, is equally important. Noble Lords may well know of the PE in School sports initiative, which again is using NOF money—£580 million over a series of years—to encourage that to happen.
My noble friend Lord Rea asked how far we have got with folic acid fortification of flour. I can tell him that COMA recommended universal fortification of flour hut did not go further to say that this should be
264
on a mandatory basis. The Department of Health and the Foods Standards Agency have conducted public consultation which has confirmed differences of opinion among the public about the matter. The next stage is for the FSA board to consider those issues in the light of the consultation programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to food poverty. I am very much aware of that, as is the Food Standards Agency. It is funding research, looking at the characteristics of so-called food deserts and assessing the local impact on dietary habits, which I hope will inform the development of policy. I visited the Sheffield health action zone which is already taking action in that area.
In the first few minutes of my remarks I have focused rightly on the consumer. But of course the farming community faces many challenges and uncertainties. They have been very well described by a number of noble Lords today. That brings me to the farming production issues which were raised in the Curry report. It has been a substantial report with many specific and detailed recommendations, both for the Government and for industry. Those recommendations demand careful consideration and reflection. Clearly I am not in a position, nor are: the Government, to give a comprehensive view on each and every one of them. It would be premature to produce any kind of detailed response to the commission's report.
What I can say—in a sense I repeat a little of what was said in the Statement that we debated yesterday—is that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has welcomed the report on behalf of the Government and the valuable ideas that it contains. Obviously the report will give us new impetus and new ideas to drive forward the process of change and to respond to some of the challenges which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and other noble Lords have posed for the Government tonight in our efforts to ensure that there is a sustainable and healthy farming industry in this country.
In relation to food production, a number of very important issues have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, raised the issue of prices paid by supermarkets to farmers. He will not need me to rehearse the commission's report and the code of practice which we certainly encourage and which the Curry commission suggests should be reviewed after two years.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about encouraging supermarkets to promote British-produced food and ensure that it is given every advantage and is accessible.
Of course securing reform of the CAP, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has suggested, will not be easy, but we are determined to do as much as we can, informed by what the Curry report suggests. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford have raised a number of questions about modulation. We want to explore the use of modulation. We certainly endorse the need to consider

265
such shifts very carefully. There are limitations at present to what modulated money could be spent. There would have to be agreement in the CAP midterm review to broaden the scope if we are to make use of modulation that the report proposes. But, subject to discussions with the devolved administrations and with the EU, increased flexibility on modulation will be the Government's objective.
I have only one minute left if I am to allow the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to respond to the debate. Clearly I have not been able to cover all the points that have been raised. However, I want to come back to the substantive point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The Government recognise the competitive pressures on the farming industry and the need for a level playing field in Europe. I would also say to the noble Earl that the opportunities that the Curry report lays out are opportunities. There is reference to new markets; to consumers wanting more authentic food; to ways of reconnecting with the farming industry; and to ways of ensuring that there is much greater cooperation between farmers in order to assert their own position in the market.
While the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, described this as a "starry-eyed vision" and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, described it as a "blue-sky vision", none the less vision is what we need. The commission's work will make a substantial contribution towards a new strategy for modern and adaptable farming in this country. I can assure noble Lords that the Government will do everything they can to make sure that that happens.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we have had—the FSA would not object to my describing it thus—a "free-ranging" debate today, with a very balanced diet of speeches. The debate was tough on the one hand—I entirely agree with my noble friend that we should have an evidence-based policy—but it was tender on the other hand. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich on his speech which reminded us how important it is that we understand that there are people and communities involved in food policy.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sub-Saharan Africa
6.9 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire rose to call attention to the case for concerted international action, particularly among European Union member states, to promote democracy and sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by welcoming the Minister to the debate. I gather that she has just got off a plane. I cannot remember from
266
which continent. I recognise that Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have relatively short shelf lives, partly because exhaustion sets in after the first 255 trans-continental flights. She has been doing extremely well on Zimbabwe, as we all recognise. We on these Benches do not intend that this debate should focus on Zimbabwe, as the House has had many other opportunities to discuss that and, sadly, will no doubt wish to have more. We want to focus on the broader issue of sub-Saharan Africa and what needs to be the British, European and developed world's response.
In recent months, especially since September 11th. we have spent a lot of time talking about states of concern—weak states, failed states or what the Americans call "rogue" states. There has been great focus on Afghanistan, in the past on Libya, on Iraq and on North Korea. In Africa, there has been a greater focus on Somalia and—on what many of us feel to be unjustified grounds—on Sudan.
But there is a far larger number of weak states across sub-Saharan Africa and a sadly small number of competent states with sound administrations and growing economies. Of the more than 40 states in sub-Saharan Africa, we can point to a few moderate success stories. There is progress in Senegal, for example, where the government have changed through democratic processes at least once and, with luck, will do so again. In spite of everything, Mozambique appears to be beginning to grow.
Thanks to intelligent and well-measured intervention by the British Government, Sierra Leone appears so far to be a major success in conflict resolution, although one must say of the Sierra Leone intervention that it was not entirely about Sierra Leone but involved the question of Liberia and the Ivory Coast—the spill-over of conflict across the region was part of the problem. The conduct of some UN forces from other African states in the inefficient UN intervention also proved to be part of the problem.
Having said that, however, many more states in Africa share the combination of problems that contribute to state collapse and internal conflict. Many of us remember that in 1960 the average income in Africa was estimated to be of the same order as that of south-east Asia. While south-east Asia has, on the whole, gone through extremely rapid growth, Africa has gone backwards. The population has doubled; poverty has doubled with it.
We may read, for example, of the widespread and deep corruption in Kenya, of accusations of vote-rigging in the recent elections in Zambia and of the deep problems in Congo—where the recent volcanic eruption comes on top of sustained civil war, with foreign armies intervening partly to exploit Congo's resources for foreign public and private ends. Rwanda and Burundi have still not entirely recovered from the dreadful massacres and conflicts there. There have been recent riots in Nigeria and, of course, the dreadful explosions in Lagos. Nigeria suffers from a widespread popular mistrust of the state and of the army. An unnecessary border war has again broken out between Ethiopia and Eritrea.
There are many common features to all of those problems. There is the exploitation of resources for private gain rather than for economic development. Those resources may be oil, as in Nigeria, Angola and some parts of the Sudan, diamonds—conflict diamonds, as they are called—or tropical wood, which, it is alleged, some companies with concessions in Congo are taking out of the country through neighbouring countries for private gain. Those countries share corrupt governments exploiting their own people. Even some governments who have been democratically elected hesitate to follow democratic rules or basic standards of good governance once in office.
There are many cross-border conflicts. The spillover across the artificial borders with which the European powers left Africa of criminal networks, private armies, state armies pursuing private profits, refugees and migrants compounds the problems that Africa faces. Cheap weapons are traded for illegal exports. All of that contributes to social collapse, which includes the spread of disease. The World Health Organisation estimates that about 25 million people in Africa have AIDS. There are outbreaks of cholera arid tuberculosis—and occasional diseases such as Ebola.
That is the pessimistic picture. When I read the World Bank group report, Can Africa Claim the 21st Century?, 1 noted that it attempts to be much more optimistic, with an emphasis on success stories. But even that report notes that the region needs to grow by at least 5 per cent a year to keep the number of poor from rising, given what is happening to the African population. If the percentage living in dire poverty is to he halved by 2015—to which the international community has committed itself—that means a huge effort to help Africa to develop. The report points out:
"Africa accounts for barely 1 percent of global GDP and only about 2 percent of world trade. Its share of global manufactured exports is almost zero".
If that is the best that one can do in terms of optimism, we clearly have many problems to face.
I remember Bob Geldof talking about the famine in Ethiopia some years ago and saying, in the wonderfully politically incorrect way that only someone like him could, that the underlying problem was that Ethiopia was a country with a 14th century government struggling to cope with 20th century weapons arid technology. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said to me a while ago, "I understand that Scotland was rather like that at one time". We should not be too colonialist in that respect. We should recognise that, after all, African countries are attempting in two generations to move through stages of economic and social growth and state-building that took European states several centuries to go through. Our states went through many disastrous wars and internal conflicts and massacres before we emerged from that period.
So it is not surprising that a continent that was in a pre-modern, tribal state—as with clanned Scotland not that long ago—should find it difficult to cope with
268
that rapid transition. Of course, the issues are all interlinked. I note that the World Bank report has as one of its sub-headings,
"Improving Governance, Managing Conflict and Rebuilding States".
None of that is new. Many of your Lordships will remember the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, whom I regret is unable to be present today, when she was Minister for Overseas Development, talking about the need for good governance as the essential basis for any development programme, in Africa or elsewhere. Markets do not run themselves. The first essentials are order, government, a structure of law, roads and communications.
Conflict resolution is a painful process; nation-building takes a long time. In this debate, we want to address the question: what is the appropriate British and international response? Many of us are happy with the way in which the Department for International Development has tackled that during the past four years, including linking defence to development arid its focus on Africa. But many of us were also rather taken by surprise by the tone of the Prime Minister's speech in Brighton last October, in which he started by saying:
"The state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world. But if the world as a community focused on it, we could heal it, And if we don't, it will become deeper and angrier".
He went on to talk about a partnership for Africa, and said:
"And I tell you if Rwanda happened again as it did in 1993, when a million people were slaughtered in cold blood, we would have a moral duty to act there also".
That is a pretty ambitious agenda.
One of the first questions that we must discuss in this debate is: does that pitch our ambitions too high? Is there any prospect that the British Government will find the resources—the money, the troops or the police and civilian officials to follow—to sustain the Prime Minister's claims? I should like to focus on two themes. First, that sort of ambition is far beyond the capability of Britain on our own. Any British government who declared such ambitions should spell out how exactly they propose to work with others to pursue them and through which multilateral frameworks. Secondly, we should be careful not to adopt too moral a tone or any sense in which it is our duty to bring the dark continent into the light, with all the echoes of Christian imperialism and the white man's burden that that will arouse among African leaders and in the sceptical and self-interested voters who take part in British elections.
Instead, we should make it clear that European governments have no alternative but to engage in the reconstruction of sub-Saharan Africa. It is a matter of self-interest, but enlightened self-interest. Globalisation—to use a word beloved of third way theorists—means that the spill-over of conflicts in Africa into Europe is almost immediate in terms of asylum seekers and refugees. There are 100,000 Somalis in London who were not here 12 years ago. Many of them got here illegally, and many of them are still here illegally. If Sierra Leone had collapsed, we would have had hundreds of thousands—tens of thousands, at least—of Sierra Leoneans.
There is a spill-over of disease. Tuberculosis has come back into this country from south Asia and Africa. There is a spill-over of criminal networks involved in drug smuggling and trafficking in women from west Africa. About once a week, I get an e-mail from someone in Sierra Leone, Nigeria or wherever, suggesting that I might just help in some fraudulent transaction or other. Europe is dependent on the resources of Africa—oil from Nigeria and Angola, tropical products of one sort or another. To make a light point, I must say that for those, like me, for whom chocolate is a necessity of life, Africa is extremely important.
We need a concerted multilateral response, engaging the United States, Japan and other developed countries as far as we can, while recognising that the main responsibilities and the costs will fall upon European Governments. Africa is central to a more effective European common foreign and security policy. The United States has made it clear that its priorities lie elsewhere; it tends to be concerned with the Middle East and central Asia, while Africa is a matter for the Europeans.
Africa is central to an effective European security and defence policy. When we discuss the Petersberg tasks, I hear European defence officials talk about matters ranging from flood relief in Mozambique all the way up to preventing conflict and social breakdown in an African state—the low end and the high end of the Petersberg tasks. We want the British Government to put the moral prime ministerial approach into a more specifically European context. I welcome the image of Jack Straw and Hubert Vedrine travelling through Africa together. That is far better than the old rivalry between France and Britain that we saw even during the last Congo conflict and the Great Lakes catastrophe. However, that is not yet enough; there must be a broader European response.
Her Majesty's Government should spell out to our European partners a broad agenda, as we raise our development budget to the European average and beyond, to encourage others to do likewise, when there are many other calls on EU and national budgets. Secondly, we should continue to press for reform and greater efficiency in the Commission's development assistance programme. It is getting a little less inefficient and corrupt, but there is still a long way to go. Thirdly, we should co-ordinate national programmes and efforts more effectively. Fourthly, as the Prime Minister said in his Brighton speech, we should open up access to European markets to exports from these countries. Many of us will remember with deep embarrassment the long time that it took to sort out the South African trade agreement. Southern EU member states did their best to block that, for self-interested reasons. Fifthly, we should pursue more explicitly a European security and defence policy that recognises that the African continent is part of where we need to send our forces. It means that we need long-range airlift, something about which the Italian and German Governments are still not entirely convinced. Sixthly, we should join up EU policy on immigration,
270
asylum and refugees with the common foreign and security policy and with development aid. Lastly, we should as far as possible draw other governments outside Europe into partnership with the EU's efforts.
That is an ambitious agenda. I hope that people can be persuaded that it is a matter of enlightened self-interest. Nation building is a thankless and long-term task. Conflict resolution, as Britain has learnt in Northern Ireland and as we are all learning in former Yugoslavia, takes at least a generation. On the other hand, Sierra Leone has been a success. This morning, one of my colleagues quoted a French saying at me:
"Africa is the last place on earth where with a battalion you have the chance of changing history".
Let us make the effort—not for moral reasons so much as out of enlightened self-interest—a major plank of Britain's European engagement. I beg to move for Papers.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on securing a debate on such urgent problems for our time. It would be daunting to attempt to follow his magisterial sweep, so I shall confine myself to narrower areas that are significant barriers to democracy and sustainable development: corruption, which has eroded the democratic power of the voter and the citizen; shortsighted disregard on the part of trading partners that ignores sustainable development and has created trade barriers that are grossly inequitable: and a means of financing better development.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we should disaggregate sub-Saharan Africa. For some years, Botswana has taken its place as a democratic inhabitant of the upper income group. Mali and Senegal, which I visited last September, are poor but peaceable, not noticeably corrupt and perfectly at home with democracy. Cape Verde, to the west, has a parliamentary opposition whose loyalty would leave ours standing. Those countries need direct investment in keeping with sustainable development and more equitable terms of trade. The Government's International Development Bill will help, with its power to enable the Government to underwrite or take a share in the kind of direct investment that the traditional commercial companies, so devoted to capital-intensive projects and mineral extraction, will not undertake.
As a former bureaucrat, I am keen on the underpinning of democracy by proper tax collection, accurate national records, accountability and probity in public officials. Those are the elements of good governance, as the noble Lord said. I congratulate the Department for International Development on its programmes to enhance the capability of the state in all those areas. Those programmes should be replicated by the international community. They will greatly assist with rooting out corruption. I declare an interest, as a council member of Transparency International (UK). Thriving national chapters of TI have strengthened local anti-corruption institutions in

271
many countries. The more support that such voluntary organisations of civil society have, the more citizens will have the confidence to tackle corruption at home.
We know that much large-scale corruption, although it must have local partners, does not come from home. It is the destructive accompanying export of some of the major contracting companies that build public utilities in many sub-Saharan countries. Only concerted international action will do. Unilateral action may not even affect the problem. A seamless structure of international obligations, implemented in all states, is required.
I applaud the Government's initial implementation of the OECD Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in the Anti-Terrorism Act. That is a very good start. But the OECD will evaluate our legislation and may well find that we have some way to go. So the Government's announcement of a general review of the whole tapestry of anti-corruption legislation is welcome. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend on the Front Bench when it will report.
The European Union has agreed a code, for which the UK was in the forefront of support, which lists sustainable development as one of the key criteria in licensing exports. And the UK Export Credit Guarantee Department has in its mission statement that it will ensure that its activities accord with sustainable development. It also said,
"we will continue to press for these criteria to be adopted internationally by all official lending and guarantee agencies".
I hope therefore that my noble friend can tell us that the criterion of sustainable development will be reinstated in the Export Control Bill.
Direct investment is the single most important influence on economic growth. For instance, Ethiopia, which I visited last September, is now, pace Bob Geldof, poised for economic take-off. Its war is over. The government have a sensible programme of economic liberalisation. It has a cohesive and active civil society with some expert NGOs to assist government capacity-building, staffed with high-calibre and dedicated Ethiopian expertise, like SoS Sahel, in which I declare an interest as a board member. But Ethiopia needs development investment like food processing industries near to the sites of agricultural production, so that people do not flock to the towns in search of jobs, and so that the whole locality can benefit from growth. It needs programmes to bring demobbed soldiers into food production.
If all those who are capable of being partners in foreign investment were to bind themselves to respect sustainable development, countries like Ethiopia would soon stop needing humanitarian aid.
Trade barriers are a negative concerted international action, if ever there was one. Following the World Bank's report on Global Economic Prospects 2002, I hope that we can move towards abolishing them.
Sub-Saharan countries themselves of course also have tariffs. But until their agricultural exports have fair global market access, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, they cannot
272
accumulate the resources for their own development. Subsidies to OECD agriculture are equal to the whole of Africa's gross domestic product. The European Union has a large task here. I hope that my noble friend can say what efforts the Government are making to propel European action in this direction.
Finally, is not the development of a tax on international currency transactions, to finance development assistance, an idea whose time is rapidly advancing? I suggest that the United Nations conference, Financing for Development, to be held in Monterrey in two months' time, would be an excellent forum for reaching agreement on the principles of this imaginative proposal.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for introducing this important debate and to congratulate him on the enormous sweep of the subject he has chosen and, indeed, on the speech that he made. In many respects I wish that I could follow him, in particular in opening out the Prime Minister's policy, and in explaining to noble Lords and, I hope, persuading a few of my colleagues of the importance of realising that we have to achieve a fairer distribution and balance between resources and populations throughout the world if we are to achieve stability and democracy.
However, I cannot do that. That is because I once stood in a village in sub-Saharan Africa and watched a group of around 30 people waving placards as they held an impromptu dance in their street. It was a beautiful evening in a beautiful and prosperous country. The man standing next to me said with delight, "These people were throwing petrol bombs into each other's homes six weeks ago. Now they've swapped placards to celebrate the peace". The year was 1979; the date was 16th April; I was in the country we now call Zimbabwe; and it was eve of poll for the first round of independence elections. The placards were election placards, which were being swapped among supporters of the opposing parties. I have no other authority than that to speak to noble Lords, except for the reason why I was there, which I shall come to in a moment. Furthermore, I have no other interest to declare than my delight in, affection and esteem for those dancing people, along with the rest of the population of their then really beautiful and prosperous country.
What a contrast is the state of their country today, as well as the approach to the impending election. I venture to speak because I was privileged to be one of the five commissioners, headed by my noble friend the late Viscount Boyd of Merton, who reported on that election to my then right honourable friend and now noble friend Lady Thatcher, immediately after she became Prime Minister. The only threat we discovered to the fairness of that election was that Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo refused to take part, and that their Zanla and Zipra guerrillas respectively sought unsuccessfully to disrupt and discredit it. It is ironic that the then government of that country had to use military power to secure a fair

273
election against Robert Mugabe's efforts, and that Robert Mugabe's government now appears to be using every available force to enforce an unfair election, and that the head of his forces states that he will disregard the result if he does not like it.
Our report, which is deposited with the papers held in the Library of the House, shows that we travelled over 2,000 miles to destinations of our own choice. We visited 66 polling stations. My colleagues, who stayed on after I had to return to the United Kingdom because of our own general election, also visited 17 counting centres. To give noble Lords only one of many indications of the extent of our independence, it was such that I was able to visit the country's biggest prison, enter every wing, see all its inmates, select a dozen at random, appoint one as interpreter and have the warders leave me entirely alone with them while I questioned them.
Is that what Robert Mugabe is afraid of, that people with the ear of a free Parliament might see how the coming election is conducted, that they might witness what has been done to the citizens of that country—which he found in prosperity and which, after almost a quarter of a century of independence, is now on the edge of bankruptcy—and hear what he has done to those citizens and what they think of him? If he is not afraid, he should let in the international observers right now, guarantee their safety and let them go wherever they want to go, see what they want to see, and talk to whom they want to talk.
I believe that, in spite of the unsatisfactory approach to them, the elections should go ahead. I say that, but no doubt noble Lords will have seen, for instance, the report of Physicians for Human Rights/Denmark, whose representatives have just returned from Zimbabwe with photographs of actual victims of torture. Your Lordships will have seen the news releases from the Movement for Democratic Change and know that the Government of Zimbabwe have ruled that everyone must have an identity card and that people cannot vote without divulging their identity. The authorities allowed some MDC members to enter an arena for an election rally. Leaving aside what went on between the authorities and the unfortunate people in the arena, their identity cards were removed when they left and the rest of the rally was prevented from taking place. All that should be known and will be known to the observers.
The election should proceed because the impressive feature of the much more peaceful elections that I witnessed was the extraordinary robustness of people when faced with attempts to intimidate them. The size of the turn-out—quite irrespective of who voted for whom—was an enormous endorsement of democracy and faith in the country, which I hope may still be rescued from complete destruction.
What is the present President of Zimbabwe seeking to protect by his extraordinary behaviour, apart from his ambition—which has been clear from the first? At the centre of Zimbabwe has been a steadily shrinking core of prosperity, security and comfort for those gathered around President Mugabe. It is that he is
274
defending—and those who benefit are supporting the president in his defence. I hope that every means will be taken to adopt the method known as smart sanctions, so that that wealthy, privileged and undemocratic core will be exposed to the same economic hardship as the rest of Zimbabwe, and that those at the centre of it will be named and their resources frozen. Then all of them will have an interest in a change of policy and in a country in which it will be possible to live safely and prosperously.
We cannot do too much because—in the view of the propaganda with which Zimbabwe is being fed—we are tainted by a history of colonialism. Our colleagues in Europe are not so tainted. The greatest and best pressure can come from South Africa. Nelson Mandela has already spoken out. Our friends in Germany and, to a lesser extent, in France may have interests in Zimbabwe that they wish to protect.
Let us do whatever we possibly can to secure peace and democracy in Zimbabwe.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of Oxfam and a trustee of a number of other development and human rights nongovernmental organisations.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for introducing this debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss issues that are of critical importance not only to the people of sub-Saharan Africa but also to those fortunate enough to live in the developed world. As the Prime Minister has said, one illusion was shattered on 11th September—that we can have the good life of the West, irrespective of the state of the rest of the world.
Before discussing the actions needed to promote democracy and sustainable development, regard must be had to the present prospects of the 591 million inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke in some detail but I will risk repeating some of the statistics that he provided.
The prospects for those people are depressing—a dire present and a bleak future. Twenty seven million of them have HIV or AIDS; one third suffer from malnutrition; average life expectancy is 47 years, compared with an average of 77 years in OECD countries; and annual per capita GNP is only 530 dollars—barely one fortieth of the OECD average of 20,000 dollars, which is an astonishing and alarming difference.
The continent is wracked with war and conflict. In the Sudan, 2 million people have died in a civil war financed by government oil revenues. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2.5 million have died in the past five years, as seven African countries have involved themselves in furthering or protecting their interests. In Angola, one child in three never reaches the age of five and 78 per cent of the rural inhabitants live in abject poverty as a result of 28 years of war. Civil conflict and war rage also in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea, Burundi and other countries.

275
Against that background, it is immensely encouraging that the Prime Minister and fellow G8 leaders are taking historic steps in working with African governments to tackle the continent's problems. They have convened a G8 Africa task force to address the issues—about which the Minister is, I am sure, far better informed—with a view to reporting to the G8 summit in June. Simultaneously, African leaders are developing their own new partnership for African development. Those initiatives give real hope of concrete progress towards the millennium development goal. It is particularly welcome that the Prime Minister is visiting Africa to discuss the continent's development agenda.
Broad agreement has been reached by senior officials of African governments and EU officials on eight priority areas, with the intention of developing joint action in each of them. Those areas are conflict prevention and resolution, including anti-personnel mines; co-operation and regional integration; integration of Africa in the world economy and trade; environment, including the fight against drought and desertification; HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases; food security; human rights and democracy; the restitution of stolen or illegally exported cultural goods; and Africa's external debt.
Those are all priorities on which there is broad agreement by the United Nations, the World Bank and others. It is an impressive list but the challenge is to move from identifying areas to producing achievable plans, then to translating them into concrete action. It is essential that EU governments and the rest of the developed world work in concert. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace said, it is not possible for the United Kingdom alone to make a significant difference. Unless each nation honours its commitments, it will riot be possible to make real progress.
That is well illustrated by past overseas development assistance. In 1970, it was agreed that 0.7 per cent of gross national product should be spent on ODA but that provided by the 22 members of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee in 2000 was, on average, only 0.22 per cent. If the DAC members had reached the 0.7 per cent target, aid would have increased by approximately 100 billion dollars per year. Estimates based on United Nations figures suggest that in the region of 25 billion dollars to 35 billion dollars per year would have been sufficient for Africa to achieve the targets set out in the 2015 development goals—which do not look as though they will be reached.
Working in concert requires a comprehensive and cohesive master plan, the constituent parts of which reinforce one another, rather than a series of one-off and sometimes contradictory activities. The Danish Government, which takes over the presidency of the EU in July. have in mind what they refer to as a "global deal", which is precisely such a plan. They also are believed to have agreed to treat sustainable development and the environment as a priority during their presidency.
276
There is no doubt about the good intentions expressed in the rhetoric of the developed countries. The challenge will be to match the rhetoric with action. A key part of that action will be the provision of much of the finance and resources that are required to implement the agreed action plans, and living with the consequences of opening their markets to exports from the developing countries.
Unless the developed countries are prepared to live with these consequences—-which, in the short term, could have a negative impact on industries such as textiles and farming—they cannot expect the developing countries to open up their markets to the exports of the developed countries.
The eminent commentator, Martin Wolf, has pointed out in the Financial Times that the advanced countries insist that developing countries should adjust to market forces. Yet, notwithstanding their vastly greater ability to cushion the plight of the losers, the developed countries themselves have been unwilling to accept the same adjustments.
He also draws attention to the anti-dumping procedures that developed countries are determined to defend, even though it is clear that they are intrinsically protectionist and violate fundamental competition principles through, for example. the export subsidies which the EU provides on farm surpluses.
In summary, there is an exciting opportunity to transform the future of sub-Saharan Africa, but it comes at a cost in the short term to the developed nations of the world. Whether or not they will be willing to match their actions to their rhetoric and accept that cost will determine the outcome.
In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to the Government for the lead they have given in addressing the issue of poverty, both in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere throughout the world, through the remarkable initiatives of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the work of the Secretary of State for DfID, supported by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, and now through the lead taken by the Prime Minister. I should add that this tribute would have been even more fulsome if the Government had produced a timetable showing by when they aim to increase development aid assistance to the 0.7 per cent UN target, and if they had not inexplicably withdrawn sustainable development as a purpose for imposing export controls in the Export Control Bill. There is still time, though, to put it back.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, in 10 seconds. perhaps I may gently suggest to your Lordships that there are only five minutes allowed for the gap and there are a further 16 speakers. I do not refer to the previous speeches, which have all been extremely interesting, but if everyone exceeds the time allowed by 30 seconds we shall be in a real pickle at the end.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, among the major issues covered by my noble friend in his masterly speech was

277
the connection between internal armed conflict in many states and the plundering of resources that belong to those people. I wish to talk about Angola and the Great Lakes region, both of which are potentially very rich but where war has displaced 6 million people, killed more than 5 million and destroyed vast amounts of property, leaving the survivors destitute in the midst of plenty. The international community has already done a great deal to find ways of stopping these conflicts, but more needs to be done.
In Angola, there is agreement that the UN should play a more proactive role in the peace process, and Mr Savimbi has at last shown some willingness to compromise, no doubt because the scales have turned against him in the conflict. There have been defections from UNITA and Savimbi is said to be cornered in the eastern province of Moxico, where his forces are surrounded by the Angolan army.
Sanctions have played an important role in bringing about the improvement in the situation in Angola, but have the leads to arms dealers and illicit diamond traders identified by the monitoring mechanism been followed? Mr Peter Hain called on the United Arab Emirates to shut down the air freight business of Victor Bout, a Russian accused of trafficking weapons to rebel movements in Africa. What did the international community do to bring pressure to bear on Mr Bout and other traffickers? Is it true that he has been given immunity by the international community because his aircraft have been helping to ferry goods to humanitarian programmes in Afghanistan?
Russia, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine were identified as states from which arms were shipped to UNITA. They all belong to the OSCE, which has a good code of conduct on arms sales but one which is only politically rather than legally binding. Participating states agreed in 1993 that they would avoid arms transfers which would be likely to,
"prolong or aggravate an existing armed conflict".
How could this be more effectively enforced? One possibility may be to establish an independent OA U institution to monitor end user certificates, with a view to preventing the use of forgery and ensuring that no state allows itself to be used as a conduit for the transfer of weapons to non-state armed forces. Eastern European states ought to be reminded of the obligations they have undertaken and invited to tighten up the criteria they use for awarding licences in the light of evidence that weapons and ammunition originating in their territory have been illegally transferred to UNITA.
In Angola, it is estimated that 40 per cent of the state's revenues goes on defence, compared with only 5 per cent for education and 3 per cent for health. But 3 billion US dollars in annual oil taxes and royalties do not appear in the national accounts. It is widely believed that President Dos Santos and his cronies are siphoning off huge sums for their own enrichment. As
278
far as we are able to do so, we should lean on Angola to end the corruption, which, according to the Washington Post, is,
"so malignant that it has metastasized to virtually every level of the public sector".
We and the EU should follow the Dutch example and insist that all disbursements of aid should be handled through NGOs. We should demand transparency in the use of oil revenues and we should encourage and help to pay for research to find out independently where the money is going. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and her Transparency International can assist in this process.
In the DRC, neighbouring states have been themselves involved in military operations, in association with various armed groups, and are plundering the nation's wealth, Zimbabwe most actively. The panel of experts on the illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth of DR Congo describes the widespread looting of timber, diamonds, gold and Coltan, a mineral from which the rare metals niobium and tantalum are extracted.
Zimbabwe is involved in the looting through the defence forces-owned company, OSLEG, of which the armed forces commander, General Vitalis Zvinavashe, is personally an important shareholder, and there is a joint venture between OSLEG and the DRC company, COM I EX, which,
"acts as the Government's main platform for commercial deals and is reportedly linked to the President and senior Ministers".
This joint venture between the Zimbabweans and the Congolese, COSLEG, formed a subsidiary for the exploitation of timber in the DRC and teamed up with an Isle of Man company, Western Hemisphere Capital Management, which provided the capital and technical resources in return for 60 per cent of the equity. The panel reports that the Zimbabwean forces have already carried out intensive logging operations in Katanga, and your Lordships will have seen the article in the Observer on Sunday reporting that the hardwood is to be sold through a company called African Hardwood Marketing, owned by Mr Elkin Pianim. who is apparently the sole shareholder also of WHCM. He may also have something to do with Western Hemisphere Resources, which has a joint venture with COSLEG to exploit DRC diamonds, according to the Observer.
With regard to diamonds, gems produced by the Societe Miniere de Bakwanga, MIBA, were systematically embezzled by company personnel and the profits from industrial grades have been skimmed by the authorities to the tune of millions of dollars. MIBA entered into an agreement with the Zimbabwean Defence Forces to exploit the most valuable of that company's holdings with an estimated production value of several billion dollars. The outside technical expertise and financial resources were provided in this case by Oryx Natural Resources, a company based in the Cayman Islands but with a London-based director, which is said to own 49 per cent of the concession. It

279
employs 750 people at the 25-year concession in NI buji Mayi, and it claims that it will produce 10 per cent of the total supply of the world's diamonds by 2004.
I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the UN investigation of the illegal exploitation of resources in the DRC, of which these are examples, will continue indefinitely, and that it will have the full co-operation of the Government, particularly when it comes to unearthing the facts about companies registered under the murky systems of British dependencies.
I agree with the statement of the European parliamentarians that we should aim to achieve an EU common position on the Great Lakes region as a whole. I join my noble friend in welcoming the visit last week by Mr Straw and M Vêdrine to the region, even if they did return empty-handed.
The parliamentarians listed areas in which they suggested that there should be harmonisation of European policies. It would be useful to know whether the Government intend to let them have a written answer, as they would have done had the recommendations come from a Select Committee.
Europe, acting together, has the resources to make a difference to the future of the Great Lakes, helping all the peoples of the region towards a new start, free of corruption and oppression.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I, too, want to talk about Zimbabwe, one of the countries of greatest importance in southern Africa.
The murder of Zimbabwe by Mr Mugabe has been going on for two years. But until now, western governments, including this Government, have limited themselves to expressions of concern. I cannot understand why no action has been taken until now. Why was not action taken two years ago—in the form of sanctions or Zimbabwe's proposed suspension from the Commonwealth—when the parliamentary elections were condemned by teams of international observers of great repute? All the factors that have led to the current action were present then. If sanctions and suspension will work now, why would they not have worked then? A report in 2001 by an important delegation from the International Bar Association said that the rule of law was breaking down and democracy was at risk. Nothing was done about the report.
The reign of terror is moving on. It is now being legitimised by authoritarian laws. The countryside is being militarised by the creation of command centres at every level—at central government level, at regional level and in every one of the 120 constituencies. These command centres are to consist of elements of the army, the police, the ZANU-PF party, the paramilitaries, the central intelligence agency and, not least, the ZANU-PF youth. By election day, 2,000 members of the youth militia will be present in each constituency. These people will have received 10 days' training. Anyone who understands training knows what that means. It indicates what they are there for. In addition. 10,000 troops will be deployed in civilian
280
clothes all over the country. All of this is to make sure that Mr Mugabe "wins". Other methods too are being adopted. A new law bans election monitors and agents from travelling with the ballot boxes—to allow, of course, stuffing or changing of the boxes.
My first political recollection is oC Germany in the late 1930s. It resembled what is happening in Zimbabwe today. That is where that country is heading. The media are being put increasingly under control. There is no independent radio or television. There is no access to the television for the opposition parties except with the permission of the government. Mr Moyo, the Information Minister, said some time ago that he would "deal with" the independent press. The following day, the premises of one of the principal independent papers were blown up. The Public Order and Security Act makes it a crime to criticise the president or other leaders, and the penalty for conviction under the Act is a maximum of five years in prison or 100,000 Zimbabwe dollars. Independent journalists are taken to court on the flimsiest of accusations, thus incurring high legal costs. The police can ban rallies for up to 90 days.
Mr Eddison Zvobgo, a member of Mr Mugabe's cabinet for a very long time and a ZAN U-PF member for 20 years, described the original access to information Bill (which I believe has been slightly changed) as:
"the most calculated and determined assault on the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution".
Will the Minister say whether it is true that the 13BC has been banned by the Zimbabwe Government from taking part in the election coverage?
I have had the pleasure and the honour of meeting in the past few days two remarkable and brave Zimbabweans, Professor Eliphas Mukonoweshuro and Mr Mark Chavanduka. The professor is an expert on elections and teaches at the university of Harare, and Mr. Chavanduka is the editor of the Zimbabwe Standard. He was tortured in 1999, but he still carries on editing his paper. These gentlemen have. I am glad to say, made many appearances on TV—although I have not had the pleasure of seeing any of them—during their brief time in this country. They have briefed quite a large number of Conservative Members of Parliament, and I understand that they have briefed the Liberal Democrats. However, according to my information, not a single Labour Member of Parliament has taken the opportunity, although it was offered to them, of meeting the two men.
A request was made to meet the noble Baroness the Minister, who I understand was abroad. They asked whether they could see Mr Bradshaw, who speaks in the Commons for the Foreign Office on African matters. But the explanation was given that they could not see him as it would be against protocol. I was a member of the Foreign Service for 11 years and a Minister at the Foreign Office for a number of years. I have never heard of any such rule of protocol. Their request to meet members of the No. 10 political unit was conveyed in a fax message on 24th January. They received no reply.

281
Those gentlemen are now in the United States, where they will be received by Mr Walter Kansteiner, who is Assistant Secretary in the State Department and ranks as a Minister. What impression does the Minister believe will have been given to those two important Zimbabweans about the British Government? What impression will they convey to their friends when they return to Zimbabwe?
I believe that the failure to receive these two gentlemen mirrors the lack of action and the lack of government policy in the past two years. This Government are in favour of an "ethical foreign policy". The Prime Minister made an impassioned speech, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, at the last Labour Party conference in which he called for a partnership with Africa whose emphasis would be on democracy and human rights. The Prime Minister said recently that this country would play "a pivotal role" on the international scene. If these are the aims of this Government, how do they relate their policy on Zimbabwe to them?
7.8 p.m.
Lord Bhatia: My Lords, I declare my interest in sub-Saharan Africa as I was born in the region and lived there until 1970. I therefore know the region and the problems that face many of its countries.
The population of the sub-Saharan region is about 590 million, of whom many were formerly under British rule. We in Britain have close ties and moral responsibilities towards them. Therefore, sustainable development in these countries should be of importance to us.
With an average life expectancy of 48.8 years and a per capita GNP of 530 US dollars for sub-Saharan people, compared with figures for the OECD countries of 76.6 years and 20,000 US dollars, we can all agree that much needs to be done.
It is heartening to hear that our Prime Minister and fellow G8 leaders are taking steps to tackle the problems of Africa. I applaud that, but over the years, I have seen many failed initiatives by Britain, Europe, the USA, the World Bank, the IMF, the UNDP, the UN and other agencies, so I urge caution and good planning. The sustainable development definition implies a programme of development in the long term. We in the West have to make a similar long-term commitment of sustainable support. Too often such initiatives from the West are short term, or a flavour of the year phenomenon, so the problems are never resolved but become bigger and more complex.
My plea to the G8 leaders is, "Please, this is a good idea, but go for it only if you have the desire and will to stay with it over a sustained period". Short-termism is costly for the West and devastating for the African countries.
How do we participate in the process? I use the word "participate" advisedly. We cannot deliver a programme of sustainable development; we can only be participants. The lead must be given to the people of Africa. Unless we empower them and give them
282
control of their destinies, the noble concept of sustainable development will end up in the dustbin of failed programmes of the West.
I pray that the G8 nations will bring together a consortium of participants to deliver sustainable development. The participants should be G8 nations, NGOs such as Oxfam, WaterAid, International Alert and many others. I declare an interest as an ex-trustee of two of those NGOs, and as a current trustee of WaterAid, along with some local NGOs and world bodies. However, we must make the countries themselves the lead members to achieve sustainable development.
Too often it is forgotten that the local people on the ground know the solutions to the problems. Although well meaning, we often deliver solutions from the West without a full understanding of the culture, capacities and real concern of those communities. In my lifetime, I have seen huge programmes go to waste because the programmes and the technologies were inappropriate to the needs of the countries. What is best and works for the West may often not work in African countries.
A major block in sustainable development is capacity building. To ensure that the countries concerned can sustain development work, investment has to be made in education at all levels, but specifically and urgently in training a cadre of civil servants in the sub-Saharan region of Africa who can run the development programmes professionally. The British Civil Service is in many places the envy of the world and we need to impart the culture of dedicated "Civil Service" to the sub-Saharan African countries.
There are many other issues that need to be mentioned, but I should like to emphasise two more. First, I refer to the reduction of conflict, which has two parts. Initially, a strong programme of conflict resolution must be built up and, secondly, the arms trade must be stopped. Difficult or impossible though that may sound, unless the West and the G8 leaders decide to address those issues, the resources of the poorest of poor countries, both in money and human terms, will consume all the aid and resources that we provide. The arms trade, which fuels conflicts and brings poverty and distress, has to be stopped. I believe that it is within our powers to do that.
Secondly, I refer to corruption which can take place only when there is someone ready to bribe and someone ready to receive the bribe. Both parties are guilty, but I believe that those who bribe are more guilty. I am talking not about the petty corruption that goes on everywhere but about the bribes and backhanders provided by western suppliers of goods, arms and services to the African countries. I was once told reliably that only 44 per cent of NGO funds reached the people and that the rest was skimmed off by the bureaucracies in a third world country. Unless we in the West are willing to crack down heavily on those who give bribes and back-handers, all our sustainable development work will be severely damaged or negated.

283
Over many years I have become cynical, but I have somehow managed to remain optimistic. There is always hope. The problems that we see today in sub-Saharan Africa are the problems that we saw in the 1970s and 1980s. They are only bigger, more complex and more difficult. We must examine why things went wrong and suggest new solutions. We need to empower the local people, build their capacities to solve their problems and extend the helping hand where needed without imposing ourselves.
Africa has its history, culture and traditions. but perhaps the West in the past 150 years has ignored those important elements. We need to bring back respect and pride to the sub-Saharan countries and help them to help themselves on the road to sustainable development. I conclude by quoting Jack Straw, who said recently:
"Britain's responsibility for Africa is a moral one. In terms of Europe's colonial legacy, we exploited Africa more unambiguously than we did anywhere else in the world. Now we can't let a great continent go down".
If we accept that profound statement, we need to commit ourselves to helping to make Africa a great continent in years to come.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Blaker, I, too, have met two deeply impressive citizens of Zimbabwe—an academic and a journalist, Mark Chavanduka from the Standard, who is well known for his principled and brave criticisms of the regime, and who was tortured in 1999. They spoke in the presence of an aggressive Zimbabwean High Commissioner whose method of debate was to bellow and hector, but who did state categorically when pressed that, just as Mugabe said in Malawi, Zimbabwe would accept observers, though not monitors and journalists. I hope that his bluff will be called.
It is good that the EU has now stipulated that observers must go in by next week. Today the Foreign Secretary, the Australians and Canadians are to urge the Commonwealth to take action against Mugabe, but fear that the African and Asian members may not support them. Will Uganda, Sierra Leone and Nigeria—grossly deceived over the Abuja Agreement—really not speak out for Africa and condemn the man who is destroying not only his own country but several others? Have the Scandinavians, who are widely respected by the third world, been asked to work on the Commonwealth countries and in the UN? Could not Nelson Mandela, who has seen for himself the devastation in the Great Lakes caused by war, be asked to use his influence?
Did Mr Straw and Mr Vedrine urge President Kabila, in the context of the troubled situation in the Congo, to send the Zimbabwean army home and, incidentally, stop the pillage of the forests? Its senior officers have been bought by Mugabe, but when the troops see what has been happening to their families at home, they are likely to be far less supportive than their officers and will vote accordingly.
284
The Commonwealth Secretariat holds copies of the Danish report on the terrible and widespread torture in Zimbabwe, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, and which was published this week. Since when has the Commonwealth accepted torture in a Commonwealth country and refused to act? It is not reassuring that the Secretary-General's African adviser two years ago proved to be a director of Oryx, the diamond firm.
The two brave Zimbabweans reported on the latest developments in a crisis that has now lasted for four years. In that time thousands of Africans have been made refugees and the country is about to starve, not least because the object of the so-called veterans' attacks on farms is primarily to loot and terrorise. Burning the maize crop is part of that.
In the past few years Mugabe has systematically disenfranchised urban voters who would vote against him, terrorised rural voters, abandoned the rule of law, armed large numbers of young men trained to beat and kill, abolished normal procedure for the protection of the ballot box and excluded observers and monitors. Above all, by excluding all journalists and making it unlawful even to criticise Mugabe, he has effectively sealed the country, neutralised the opposition and prevented the truth from being known. Even if, with immense bravery, the people were to vote against him, their votes would be destroyed. If we do not send in observers and monitors now, we shall have connived in the murder of a free people. Black and white citizens are sharing a common suffering and are longing for the restoration of law.
Why are we not reminding the world of the offers made by the UK, along with many other countries, at the donors' conference of 1998—as well as at Abuja—together with UN and World Bank help, and their flagrant rejection by Mugabe? We should renew that offer publicly, making it conditional on free elections. Mugabe has been given chance after chance. As deadlines have passed there has been no action.
The events of September last have overshadowed even this terrible threat to an innocent people. It is not only in Afghanistan that a bloody civil war horn of despair could come if Mugabe wins. Win or lose, there will be many thousands of unemployed young men with guns in their hands and the habit of killing.
The two Zimbabweans brought vital news from a closed country. They left yesterday for Washington, where they are to see the Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, visit the Africa Bureau in the White House, Lorne Cramer, Colin Powell's special adviser on human rights, the top man in the National Security Council, as well as Congressmen and Senators on the powerful Foreign Affairs Committee. They saw senior members of the EU last week, notably the Spaniards and the French. This morning Monsieur Vedrine, Mr Straw's recent travelling companion, and the French Foreign Minister asked for a briefing on their mission from the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, which arranged their visit.

285
Who saw them from the British Government at this critical time? I make, without apology, the point made by my noble friend Lord Blaker: no one saw them, no one. Mr Straw could not see them, for the good reason that he was at the EU. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, was due to be in New York at the UN—unfortunate, but unavoidable. I am sure that she was doing vital work there. It is a tragedy that she was not here. But what about Peter Hain? He had other engagements. What about Mr Bradshaw? As my noble friend told the House, his office explained that, although he spoke for the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, in the other place, it would be against protocol for him to see them.
So the two Zimbabweans saw two desk officers in the FCO—no Labour MPs, no Ministers. What of No. 10? The trust spoke to those in the Policy Unit who deal with Africa. A fax was requested, after which the trust was told that everyone was too busy. The trust then sent a second fax urging the current importance of the issue and detailing the programme in Washington. No reply was received. So, at this critical moment when the fate of Zimbabwe is in the balance, no Minister, no representative of the Government—in the unfortunate absence of the noble Baroness—has had time to listen. The French have, the Americans will. The people of Zimbabwe, especially when they also remember our policy on asylum until last week, will draw their own conclusions. They will not be to the credit of this country, or advance our future relations. I hate to think what conclusions the Americans will draw. I find it very hard to believe that the Prime Minister is not concerned, given his recent declared interest in Africa.
Perhaps I may urge most strongly that we should insist on: a British presence among the observers; entry for all journalists, and, above all, the BBC—for the World Service is widely respected; a clear promise that there should be a free and fair election with an end to violence, an instant package of food and medical aid, help for the thousands of refugees on the borders and in the country, and a long-term development programme to be coupled with action on the land issue, with UN supervision. I have considerable faith in the capacity of the noble Baroness's ministry to do this both fast and well as part of an international effort. Such action could solve half the refugee problem. It is the Africans on the farms who have been driven out. The farmers themselves have many constructive proposals in this area. It could also give the opposition something to offer the people and thereby stop the destabilisation. Moreover, Zimbabwe has the infrastructure.
Meanwhile, I hope that the press and the media will provide the fullest possible coverage of events in Zimbabwe, and on its borders. Why do we see no photographs of refugees who have been flooding across the South African border for months now? The Government must end the quiet diplomacy that has allowed Mugabe to get away with, literally, murder; they must come out openly as the champion of the rule of law and of the people.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend Lord Wallace for giving us the opportunity for this debate, I should like to concentrate my remarks solely on the subject of the World Summit on Sustainable Development that is due to be held in Johannesburg during the last week of August and the first week of September this year. In talking about the Earth Summit—sometimes known as, "Rio + 10"—some of the issues that we have been discussing will come into focus.
The summit is a highly significant occasion, and the location is even more significant because the global agenda that will be discussed has moved on subtly from Rio 10 years ago, which was primarily about the environment, to being about both the poverty agenda and the environment. Therefore, it is particularly appropriate that the summit should be held in the developing world; and especially appropriate that it should be held in South Africa on the African continent. Sub-Saharan Africa has that uniquely deadly combination that makes up world poverty—the 1.5 billion people who we find are excluded from the world's table—both poor countries and poor populations are to be found in the area.
The International Red Cross estimates that 50 per cent of its staff and 34 per cent of its expenditure for the whole world is now concentrated in Africa. However, there are some bright spots, many of which have already been mentioned in this debate. Looking at Mozambique, Mali or Uganda 10 years ago, I believe that all of us would be astounded by the progress that has been made. Some very fine achievements can also be seen in Namibia and Botswana. But, above all, our hopes rest on the success of South Africa. It is almost impossible to exaggerate how important it is not just to Africa but also to the world that South Africa should succeed—yet South Africa still has a fragile economy and society, with millions of poor and excluded people within its population.
As much of this evening's discussion has been about Zimbabwe, perhaps I may tell the Minister parenthetically that it seems obvious that the serious secondary significance of that deadly combination in that country of incompetence, corruption and tyranny is its roll-on effect on South Africa, together with the threat that it poses to the last and best hope for freedom, democracy and prosperity on the African continent.
Sub-Saharan Africa really needs a "hand up". I am not saying that it does not need a "hand out", because it does. Indeed, through DfID, the British Government have been admirable in what they have done and are seeking to achieve in the area. However, we need, as does the rest of the world, to promote economic activity and growth—the 5 per cent from the World Bank figures referred to by my noble friend. We also need direct foreign investment, working synergistically as far as possible with overseas development assistance; in other words, with the two working together to try to produce some sort of

287
economic improvement. That means the involvement of business on a much larger scale in Africa, which, for some fairly obvious reasons, has been too much of a "no-go area" for international companies considering investment. But business is needed: ma king investments, creating capacity and jobs always—it is to be hoped—in a responsible way in terms of the environment and of social effects.
Here I should declare an interest as vice-chairman of the Global Business Coalition, which has formed the "Business Action for Sustainable Development" to ensure that world business is present in Johannesburg as a constructive partner for sustainable development, which is so much needed. The aim is to make of Johannesburg not just another meeting of heads of government, but what in South Africa is called, an Inclaba—art Inclaba of the world's stakeholders—to address some of these grievous problems of poverty, disease, migration, environmental depredation, clean water and sustainable energy, and to do so together.
One of the more encouraging initiatives in recent weeks has been the formation—I hope I pronounce it correctly—of NePAD, which stands for the New Partnership for Africa's Development. This is an African initiative that links the issues of good governance to economic development. Indeed, Thabo Mbeki has played a leading role in the process. I should pay a tribute here to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for International Development, and the noble Baroness, all of whom have played an outstanding leadership role and demonstrated a commitment to Africa, not least in respect of this initiative in which several British companies are also involved. When she responds to the debate, perhaps the Minister could tell the House a little more about NePAD, and how its exclusion of corrupt and unaccountable governments bears on the regime in Zimbabwe.
I shall refer briefly to two other aspects of the world summit. One wholly admirable aspiration is that when the captains and the kings depart in September—the great men come in and leave—a tangible legacy should be left behind in South Africa and in sub-Saha:ran Africa as a whole. The local branch of "Business Action for Sustainable Action" (the business coordinating forum) is working with the South African Government to produce a menu of projects both large and small from very large FDI projects, Agenda 21 projects, carbon-dioxide and clean water projects, as well as micro credit projects, which are especially important in Africa for empowering women. I simply tell your Lordships that it is important for everyone who engages in the summit not to think that it is just a talk-shop; it is a way of leaving tangible benefits behind in an area of the world that desperately needs them. I hope that what I have said applies to governments, NGOs, universities and the media, as well as to those businesses going to Johannesburg.
I have one ticklish subject to raise. The South African Government are having a lot of trouble funding the summit. I am well aware that, unlike some other governments, Her Majesty's Government have made some proper pledges to support the summit, but
288
the South African Government are facing a serious deficit in funding the occasion, which is so much in the world's interests. I hope that our Government, together with other European Union countries and other friendly countries who want the summit to succeed, will ensure that the South African Government, who can ill afford it, are not left holding the baby for this important occasion.
Following September 11th, we cannot overestimate the importance of a successful summit for sustainable development. We have had a coalition against something—against global terrorism. Now is the chance to have a coalition for something —for a more cohesive world and for sustainable development. That could happen at Johannesburg. The omens are not all good and the prospects are somewhat precarious, but Her Majesty's Government have made a major contribution. I simply ask the Minister to say what more they can do to ensure the success of that very important occasion.
7.31 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on securing prime time for Africa. We have entered one of those periods of African euphoria, in which European politicians on their travels make all sorts of promises that they cannot or will not fulfil. However, Africa must make the best of it, because, apart from Cotonou, which has merely updated Lomé, sub-Saharan Africa has not benefited from major new initiatives for a considerable time.
There is no point in rehearsing the suffering in Africa, because the media already do that, feasting on disaster and telling us little of the positive changes, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, has just said. After visits to Sudan, Kenya and Uganda, I remain optimistic, although I do not measure progress as I know that statisticians and evaluators are taught to do. As my noble friend Lord Bhatia said, there have been so many failed European ventures in Africa that it is hard, even now with debt relief and poverty reduction strategies replacing structural adjustment programmes, to assess truly indigenous development policies.
I start from the premise that the World Bank and multilateral agencies are beginning to get it right, although that is still highly contentious given the way in which they have applied conditionality. We are told that there is a new multilateralism in the air in the wake of September 11th. Democracy, good governance, justice and human rights—whatever they mean—are fine principles that we can all agree on, and it is encouraging that so many countries pay lip service to them, because there is at least a common language.
However, I am cautious, because I do not believe that democracy works very well anywhere, including in this Palace of Westminster. Officially we have dropped the Westminster model, but there is still a wide and quite false perception in our country that we are right and others are wrong. The Athenians probably had the same misconception. Every society operates a hybrid pattern of government and we are

289
not entitled, even through the Commonwealth, to preach the gospel of citizenship. As it happens, for various reasons, countries such as Uganda still apply some Westminster principles, but they have all been fortunately adapted to their own particular case.
I am more concerned with the impact of democratic institutions on the local population, which is usually very marginal. Civil society is the buzz phrase, but decisions are still taken by multinational companies, the United Nations, the larger aid organisations and local entrepreneurs. That is why I am suspicious of business in Africa; it often makes central government irrelevant. Here I declare a prejudice, having represented some of the smaller aid agencies in Africa. The best kind of democracy that I have seen is through the more accountable smaller aid agencies. It has very little to do with central government. Typically, the local NGO works alongside local government and traditional leadership. Naturally, that is why external governments like to support small-scale development. However, they are also obliged to support governments and national bodies that—they hope— can end conflicts, promote democracy and reduce corruption.
Non-governmental organisations can do that at the national level in only a few countries, of which Uganda is one. It is an interesting example of a country that has eschewed conventional multi-party democracy, although that has also been a disguise for a fairly ruthless national political movement. Human rights are certainly not universal.
On the other hand, having attended the Ugandan Parliament, I was impressed by the maturity and high standard of debate, which can genuinely reflect local concerns. Whatever the propriety of the model, Ugandans are thriving on political stability and a traditional emphasis on education, which has ensured on the whole that the rural areas, although desperately poor, are not neglected.
South Africa is a more familiar model. I well remember standing in line in a Johannesburg suburb on that historic day in April 1994 when millions turned out to vote. The vote is still regarded as the universal form of democracy, yet it is also the occasion when mandates are handed over to demagogues and tyrants. often for years—not forgetting our own MPs, who deceive voters or change sides to suit their own purposes and purses. Elections are also the time when the people are cheated, as they are being defrauded in Zimbabwe today. The poorest countries are the most vulnerable to fraud and corruption. Electoral commissions in the most deprived countries, such as Sierra Leone, have difficulty even financing the process of registration. In South Africa, the NGOs played an active part in voter education to ensure a successful election; very few other countries have attracted the same support. Will the noble Baroness tell us how DfID is contributing to political education in Africa and election-holding in countries such as Sierra Leone?
290
The other important strand of the debate is sustainable development. Here, paradoxically, I shall concentrate on countries in conflict. Hardly any country in Africa is free of conflict. Within the often artificial national borders, people have to get used to the coexistence of war and peace. A new school of political theory has sprung up around the idea of conflict resolution and the role of development programmes and human rights in the search for peace and stable government.
Eighteen months ago I was in Sudan. There can hardly be a country in Africa more torn apart, except perhaps Angola or Sierra Leone. Our perception is that whole tracts of Sudan have been taken over by local militia and proxy armies operating outside the rule of law, yet a sophisticated and settled population is to be found in most of the country, with many examples of democracy at work. Again, my prejudice is for the NGOs and Church-backed groups seeking reconciliation in both North and South. I believe that in the North the courts uphold the law through pressure from below as well as from above. That is a strong sign of democratic health, despite what is often said about breaches of human rights in Sudan.
The same can be said of the South, where again there is faction fighting over vast areas, but in many of those areas of the country the legal system has broken down and education is all but destroyed for lack of infrastructure. I am now speaking at a more local political level, mindful of the recent return of the Secretary of State after her first visit. I contend that even in the most helpless societies, such as Rwanda, modest contributions to local government, legal and democratic institutions can restore order and stability and prepare the country for a true return to normality and, by that route, to what is called sustainable development. It can bring confidence back to a community that has suffered for a generation or more. SOS Sahel, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is one of the practitioners of the skills of rural development and conflict resolution.
I hope that DfID will think seriously about its role alongside a reformed European Development Fund in fostering peace through sustainable development in the whole of Africa. In Sudan, several NGOs are active in reviving the legal system and education in parts of the community still regarded by DfID as no-go areas. Peace talks are taking place in lush Nairobi hotels, contrasting with the poverty of Sudan. We hope that the IGAD process will now yield results.
The Department for International Development is already supporting some initiatives such as reconciliation between ethnic groups. Could the Government not move one step further and support grassroots development and civic education to bring encouragement to those already engaged in those projects? Women who have watched their husbands and sons die in conflict are often the most active partners in development. However, as in neighbouring Uganda, many community groups are seriously underfunded. I look forward to the Minister's reaction.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for introducing a most important debate that I am sure will help to inform the Government's immediate policies and the ones that they will present at the end of August, at the world summit on sustainable development. However, as the Prime Minister so eloquently reminded us, many of the issues that we are discussing have such global consequences that they truly are the responsibility of governments, industry and individuals around the world.
Many countries of sub-Saharan Africa, from Nigeria to South Africa and from Mozambique to Angola, have had dreadful recent experiences of poverty, conflict, environmental degradation, natural disasters and threats to democracy. However, there are encouraging signs of profound changes in attitude and the beginning of action programmes both by governments and by the international governmental and business community. There is evidence that those of Africa's more far-sighted leaders in open, participatory societies are moving to decelerate the recent downward spiral into poverty and violence. They and the international institutions, as well as the proposers of this debate, have recognised that the only way of progressing the well-being of people everywhere is to proceed on a broad front with democracy, socio-economic development and security on the one hand, and, on the other, a healthy population with a sustainable economy and environment over—as the noble Lord, Lord Bha.tia, reminded us—the long term.
There is now—if there was not before—a great consensus on those interconnected goals, especially that of sustainability, which was the great idea that emerged from the 1992 United Nations environmental conference at Rio. I should like to describe the encouraging organisational and practical steps that certain African countries are taking in those directions.
The Millennium Partnership for the African Recovery Programme was established in early 2001 by Presidents Mbeki of South Africa, Bouteflika of Algeria and Obasanjo of Nigeria. This intergovernmental initiative emerged from an earlier African Renaissance process but underwent several changes in the course of the past year, eventually emerging by the end of the year as the New Partnership for Africa's Development—NePAD—which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham.
NePAD carries forward the spirit of the document issued for the Organisation of African Unity summit held in July 2001. The document states:
"This new African initiative is a pledge by African leaders, based on a common vision and a firm and shared conviction, that they have a pressing duty to eradicate poverty and to place their countries, both individually and collectively, on a path of sustainable growth and development, and at the same time to participate actively in the world economy and body politic. The Programme is anchored on the determination of Africans to extricate themselves and the continent from the malaise of underdevelopment and exclusion in a globalising world".
292
As President Mbeki has asserted, NePAD and the African Union are "the ways and means" chosen for carrying Africa forward into the 21st century. As the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. reminded us, these strategic initiatives need to be built on specific actions and involve Africans and the external community. One initiative, termed the African Process, was adopted by Ministers at the Cape Town conference on development and protection of the marine environment in sub-Saharan Africa, held in 1998 as a result of an initiative by a non-governmental organisation called ACOPS—the Advisory Committee for Protection of the Sea—which was founded 50 years ago by the noble Lord Lord Callaghan, and which I now have the honour to chair. I declare that as my interest.
That initiative has led on to projects to safeguard and remediate the environment in the marine and coastal regions that are of such strategic importance to these countries. National teams of experts building upon information and databases are making a comprehensive assessment of, for example, threatened sensitive habitats and the currently inadequate levels of regulatory frameworks. Scientists and socioeconomic experts participate in that process. That work also leads to project proposals and prospective business partners.
Sadly, this process has had almost no coverage in the international media, which tend to focus exclusively on Africa's difficulties. This initiative is very much African driven and African led and involves both local and national concerns of Africans, the donor communities and the private sector. The proposals will be tabled at the upcoming partnership conference. It was decided at the July OAU summit in Lusaka that the conference should be held in conjunction with the world summit on sustainable development. It is the type of practical project to which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred. It will also be held at the level of heads of state. Interestingly, the development was spearheaded by Minister Okopido of Nigeria, last year, when he gave an address in the House of Lords at the James Callaghan Lecture.
Surely that encouraging development should be supported by all those interested in Africa's welfare. I am hopeful that the Government will assist in every way they can.
Some of the factors that militate against sustainable development are the result of natural causes, especially natural disasters and desertification, as we have seen in Africa with the Mozambique floods, droughts in Sudan and Ethiopia, and recently the volcano in the Congo. However, their damaging effects can he considerably reduced by organisation, funding and the application of science, technology and agriculture. The critical effect of natural disasters on international development was properly recognised in the International Development Bill which we recently considered. So it is essential that that element is emphasised in the work of the world summit. Regrettably, it is not in any of the documentation that I have seen so far.

293
Perhaps as part of that summit, even with quite limited resources, the Government could do a great deal more to make improvements through more training, provision of technical assistance, working to ensure that environmental data are exchanged and providing resources to enable communities to monitor and care for their environment. Your Lordships might be intrigued to know that, after the wars in Rwanda, many of the rain gauges were used as cooking pots and all the other equipment disappeared. Consequently, when the meteorologists came to work at Kigali airport, there was little that they could do. That is a common occurrence in Africa.
Equally, in the Mozambique floods, information on river levels upstream in Zambia and Zimbabwe was not communicated. Indeed, there is still no standard international arrangement for the exchange of such data. Getting such environmental arrangements right is as important as anything else in creating sustainable communities.
Another point is the role of the business community. The insurance industry in the developed world is increasingly taking a role in helping the poorest countries insure themselves against the worst natural disasters. The recently formed Commonwealth Management Disaster Agency should be able to contribute the insurance resources of the City of London to help. As I said, that is an example of the business contribution, and it is a totally new approach.
Desertification remains a great scourge in Africa. DfID is certainly working hard to focus on the problem, providing technical assistance and focusing on the poorest communities. Nevertheless, one must ask where is the financial assistance to these countries from Saudi Arabia and the other oil-rich countries that urged the creation of the desertification convention in 1992, in part because they said that they did not want to contribute to the international climate change activities. I believe that the Government should be pressing them strongly on that point.
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for bringing this topic to the House for debate today.
The EU is one of the world's biggest aid donors. The annual aid disbursement of about £5 billion per annum is enough to bring quality education to children in much of sub-Saharan Africa. A programme focused on such a clear target could make the EU the best aid donor in the world. Sadly, the politics and self-interest of EU members mean that it is one of the least timely and effective donors. More than one third of the EU's external development aid budget goes not to the poorest, but to mid-level countries. According to the report, The Reality of Aid 2000, billions of euros-4 billion ecu of the amount committed for aid between 1990 and 1994—remain unspent.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly broadens this debate to include not only Brussels but each and every one of the EU member states. If each of them met the
294
targets agreed at the world summit for social development in 1995 for contributions to basic social services, well over £1.5 billion would be released in development aid for access to health, education and water. In justice, sub-Saharan Africa, as the region with the world's lowest GNP, would surely benefit most. I ask your Lordships to think of the numbers of children whose lives could be saved, futures secured and potential realised by the wise disbursement of that level of development aid.
I must declare an interest here as chairman of Plan International UK. Plan is a child focused development agency receiving and using contributions from over 100,000 people in the UK and three-quarters of a million in Europe to help the world's poorest families make a real difference to the lives of their children. Since the charity started 60 years ago to help children orphaned in the Spanish Civil War, Plan has learnt a lot about sustainable development and promoting democracy. We work, through local staff, with poor communities in 43 developing countries including sub-Saharan Africa.
We work at grassroots level in villages with poor communities. We have learnt that sustainable development is based on participation, education and collaboration. A fundamental principle of our work is real and meaningful participation of the poor in the activities that are meant to assist them.
The poor and marginalised traditionally have no voice, no information, no say in what happens to them. Yet visiting poor communities with Plan, I have seen women who appear to have nothing saving a few shillings at a time in a credit scheme. Eventually they are able to take out a loan for the cow, the sewing machine, the market stall which makes the difference between their children eating or going hungry.
Women learn the skills of managing a village bank or credit union and start to control their future. We have learnt from these women that encouraging longterm sustainable financial institutions in poor areas is one way to help families to pull themselves out of poverty. Throughout the world we see participation in action; for example, the Msingi Bora project in Kenya is engaging young teenage girls, their parents and teachers, in breaking down gender stereotyping and opening new careers for girls.
In my field visits I have also seen a hunger for education, evidenced by the sacrifices that families make to pay for school uniform, fees and a few books to put a child through school. Although the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that every child has a right to primary education, in sub-Saharan Africa four out of 10 currently do not go to school; their families are too poor, or school is not available. UNICEF 2001 statistics show that world-wide only 2 per cent of development aid is spent on basic education. Ensuring that every child gets an education is not difficult, it just requires money and, most importantly, political will to make the most effective and targeted use of resources.
In Sierra Leone our priority, (because it is the priority of the communities with which we work), is education. Plan is providing the raw materials so

295
communities can rebuild their schools. In those schools, side by side with normal lessons, the local pikine to pikine (pikine means child) organisation is teaching children about health and sanitation and our partners in the Federation of African Women Educators are counselling children who have been traumatised and abused during the war. Education can flourish even among the traumatised and terrified children of a civil war. We know that educating and informing today's children in Sierra Leone is essential to the economic growth and development of the country in the future.
Achieving lasting change requires the full cooperation of everyone in a country—government, civil society, faith groups, the private sector and for us most importantly the children, women and men in grassroots communities.
Over the past 15 years we have seen the progress that many communities in sub-Saharan Africa have made eroded by HIV/AIDS. There are now 8 million AIDS orphans in the region. The Hope for African Children Initiative helps communities to care for their orphans. 1t harnesses the effort of several international NGOs, women's groups, the private sector (the pilot scheme was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.), religious leaders and professionals such as doctors and nurses. Parents are encouraged to go for voluntary testing; their lives are prolonged through treatment for opportunistic diseases such as pneumonia and they and their families are counselled and encouraged to make wills to provide for the children. After the parents' death, the children receive not only counselling from community volunteers but their carers receive practical help with school fees and vocational training is available so that the children can earn a living.
There are many examples of successful sustainable development. The noble Lord also asks about democracy. A key plank of a democracy is fostering open dialogue. In Plan we start with the children and throughout Africa there are children's radio programmes which bring the concerns of youth to the attention of adults and politicians. So in West Africa children in a village will work with a production team for one week to produce a lively radio programme on an issue that matters to them—why teachers do not turn up for school, or why adults hit children, or whether teenagers should have confidential visits to the health worker. The programme is then broadcast throughout the area.
I have given just a few small examples of how the money from private citizens in EU member states is making a real difference to the lives of children in sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainable development is not rocket science. We know that it can be achieved. We have seen it. We have all also seen the effect of the failure of democracy arid development, the disintegration of the state and with it the hope for the children's future.
I ask the Minister here today what the UK Government are doing to make the EU and member states a more effective champion of democracy and development and a more effective aid donor. I know
296
through Plan supporters that among citizens of the EU there is strong support for the EU becoming the best and most effective aid donor in the world.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for introducing the debate as he (lid. By this time of the evening most of the thundet has been stolen, and extremely well stolen, by some fine speeches from noble Lords who know a great deal about the subject in hand.
Therefore, I should like to confine myself to two or three issues. The first is a slightly tentative one, because one of the themes that we have heard repeatedly urged tonight is the need for co-operation, cohesion and common programmes, particularly within the European Union. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, talked of a coherent and cohesive master plan. His was a masterly speech, but I hope that I may question whether a coherent and cohesive master plan is in fact what is needed.
It is a question of fine judgment as to precisely how far one tries to co-ordinate or cohere policies, whether within the EU or elsewhere. Co-ordination can easily become inflexibility and coherence can be prescriptive. Common objectives can too easily become narrow and exclusive and harmonisation can lead to a lack of diversity and experimentation. I raise these points not in any way to take away from the need for more focus, more co-operation and more sharing of experiences to ensure that there is no unnecessary overlap or black holes in the provision that we bring to this enormous continent, with its stupendous problems.
I should like to take up a point that the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, made, I thought very effectively, which concerns the importance of self-help in all this. It is a truism and yet it is easily forgotten. It is worth remembering that self-help is no less important here in the policies that we bring to our own problems of poverty and exclusion. I remind the House that the one theme above all others that comes out of the 18 members of the policy action team set up by the present Government to look at social exclusion is the need to inculcate self-help. Of course, that is frustrating if you want to leap in and help, because so often we think that we can do things for others and that we can provide this and that. We consider that we can provide expertise, plant, equipment and money, but in the medium to long term that is useless unless those whom we seek to help learn to do things for themselves.
The development of civil society and democracy in parts of the world which have never known those things, at least in the way we conceive them, is intensely difficult. I suggest that what we have done hitherto has in many ways been almost a problem for such evolution. It is not as if the countries themselves do not have their own traditions. I refer to tribalism, with powerful chiefs and a general culture that does not sit easily with the new culture of democracy.

297
I commend the Government, as many other noble Lords have done, and in particular Clare Short, the Secretary of State. Hers has been a particularly vigorous and committed espousal of the needs of development in that continent and everywhere else. I am very impressed by much of DfID's work. It does that in partnership with the NGOs, both great and small, of which there are very many. We will not forget that the partnership between government and NGOs is extensive because it has to take into account many other bodies, including international bodies and the EU and its various organisms. It also has to take into account the states in which we are seeking to render assistance, groups within the state, many of which are against the state concerned, donor constituencies and others. I am sure that the issue of self-help is predominant and should remain so in all our attempts to alleviate the woes of the third world.
I commend an exemplar project; namely, the Amani project, which is funded by DOD and run by the charity International Alert, with which I must admit professional connections. That project has run for only two years but it is already making real headway. One way in which it does that is through its absolute determination to eliminate all western personnel within a relatively short period; that involves 100 per cent Africanisation. Its approach is broadly about encouraging mutual support between and emulation of the parliamentarians in and between six countries. Those countries are Uganda, Zambia, Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda and Kenya.
The peace-building and confidence-raising that the Amani project is designed to assist extend to working within and between Parliaments and their groups of MPs. That involves best practice and networking and the development of common themes and concerns. The practical fruit of what has already been done is the creation of national chapters in those six countries and the development of an executive committee across them.
I turn to the example of the Tanzanian elections, which caused uproar in Zanzibar and Pemba. A joint team of parliamentarians was produced from the six members of the Amani project. Its negotiations with the Tanzanian Government led to the return of most of those who became refugees in the wake of the violence at the beginning of last year. I commend that project, which I am sure represents the way in which we all want to encourage the Government and the NGOs.
Finally, I want to quote an e-mail that I received yesterday from somebody who is working in one of the most difficult situations in Africa. He said that the UK was,
"supporting generously Rwanda and Uganda in economic and defence terms, even if the latter is poorly documented. These two countries are between them occupying half of neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo and plundering the immense wealth of this country while exploiting the local labour forces and promoting war and divisions. This issue is highly sensitive and few NGOs. dare raise it for fear of losing sources of funding from the British government".
298
I close on that note, not to be pessimistic but to point out that there is a high degree of sensitivity among NGOs in some of the other work that the British Government undertake—or do not undertake.
8.4 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for introducing this debate at a particularly opportune time—ahead of the presidential elections in Zimbabwe and the Earth Summit in Johannesburg in August.
Last year, I initiated a similar debate on the political, social and economic challenges facing Southern Africa. For that reason, I was particularly pleased that this debate focuses more on "concerted international action", which is aimed in particular at EU member states, to promote democracy and sustainable development in the region.
I want to focus my remarks, as many noble Lords have done, on current developments in Zimbabwe and South Africa, and to make brief reference to what has been happening in Angola and Mozambique. I do not want to regurgitate the speech that I made during our debate on Zimbabwe which was initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. I want to give my personal view—I stress that it is personal—of how events will unfold in Zimbabwe over the next few months.
It is generally accepted that despite the international calls for free and fair presidential elections in Zimbabwe in March, as well as for international monitors and respect for the rule of law, the elections on 9th and 10th March will be a non-event. I use that phrase because when I spoke to the editor of the Sunday Independent in South Africa today, he used it. The elections will certainly not be free or fair, and President Mugabe will be re-elected. Moreover, there is no doubt that the Abuja Agreement is totally dead. I am also highly sceptical as to the likelihood of the Commonwealth Action Group, which is meeting today, getting any agreement to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. Had CHOGM been able to meet, as was originally planned, in October of last year, the Commonwealth would possibly have had more muscle to suspend Zimbabwe if there were not free and fair elections. Due to the events of September 11th last year, CHOGM will be reconvening on only 2nd and 3rd March. which gives little time to take decisive action against Zimbabwe.
So, quo vadis Zimbabwe post 10th March, when Robert Mugabe will be re-elected? It seems inevitable that the country will collapse into a state of civil war. That might be a draconian view, but there is a very real risk that the peaceful stance of the MDF and the patience of the Zimbabwean people will come to breaking point.
I have always contended that there should be African solutions to African problems. To that end, the only real chance of a breakthrough in the deteriorating situation in that country is for South Africa and SADC to exert more pressure for change with firm timetables and deadlines. I hope furthermore

299
that the international community will press ahead with smart sanctions against Robert Mugabe and ZA NUPF. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
Last night, President Thabo Mbeki, who I understand is in daily contact with Robert Mugabe, called an emergency meeting with business leaders, trade union leaders and church leaders in South Africa to discuss a united approach to bring pressure to bear on Mr Mugabe. Clearly, South Africa is concerned not just with the consequential impact over the entire region of the political and economic instability of Zimbabwe, but also with the burgeoning numbers of migrant labourers who are flooding through the borders into South Africa. It may be too late, but there is no doubt that President Thabo Mbeki has taken a far more pro-active stance over the past few months both in his capacity as President of South Africa and through SA DC.
Among the ongoing revelations of human rights violations and the increasingly dire economic downward spiral in Zimbabwe, I was heartened to hear the speech of Eddison Zvogbo—it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker—who heads the Zimbabwean Government's legal committee when he openly challenged the proposed media Bill, and I believe that it is worth reiterating the words that he used. He said:
"This is the most calculated and determined assault on the nation's constitutional right to free expression since independence 22 years ago".
He also went on to say that the Bill was in breach of 20 clauses of the Zimbabwean constitution. That is a very positive development.
I now want to turn briefly to the current situation in South Africa and elaborate on some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. When Thabo Mbeki took over from President Nelson Mandela, expectations were high that he would expedite the reform programme outlined in the reconstruction and development programme. While he has, to a large degree, achieved his targets of improved water distribution and greater access to education and electricity, as well as improved healthcare and the provision of more housing for the less privileged population, his greatest challenges and problems remain the stagnant economic growth rate and the AIDS pandemic, which is not only a health crisis but also a development crisis.
With unemployment at over 30 per cent and a serious poverty crisis, particularly in rural areas, compounded by the lack of affordable AIDS treatment drugs, the country is increasingly dependent on foreign inward investment as well as the provision of more affordable anti-retroviral drugs. NGOs have certainly played a pivotal role in alleviating that crisis. Can the Minister elaborate on the new Africa trade and poverty initiative in sub-Saharan Africa and on how effective it has been in strengthening the ability of African countries to negotiate effectively with international bodies such as the European Union and the World Trade Organisation? In particular, I want to give credit to the DfID report of March last year which
300
outlined the department's international development targets for sub-Saharan Africa, including the reduction and prevention of conflict in the region.
Finally, I am very concerned by the apparent stalemate in Angola, which is, by all accounts, teetering back into civil war with Jonas Savimbi regrouping and President dos Santos showing little interest in the promotion of multi-party democracy. In replying, can the Minister elaborate on what progress Her Majesty's Government are making in promoting multi-party democracy in Angola, as well as saying what action has been taken to remove the many millions of landmines in the region?
My time is almost up. While I reiterate my belief that African solutions need to be found for African problems, the international community has a pivotal role to play in the region. I support wholeheartedly the call by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, when he said that European Union member states should have no alternative but to engage in the region.
8.13 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has set the House a challenging task in putting forward such a broad-based title for the debate. There is a huge number of subjects to talk about in terms of democracy and sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa, and we have heard a very great spread. However, I make no apologies whatever for concentrating, as other noble Lords have done, on the issue of Zimbabwe. This debate is being held at an extraordinarily timely moment. There are powerful reasons why we should continue to apply all the pressure that we can in this House and in other fora to bring this issue to the forefront of international consciousness.
Zimbabwe is a very important country in the sub-Saharan region. It should be a great and prosperous country. It has been that in the past and I am sure that it will become so again. But it has been held back deliberately by one very small interested party for its own personal gain. We, the international community, can certainly make a difference. Zimbabwe is not beyond hope by any means. My personal belief is optimistic that before long we shall see Zimbabwe return to the great country that it once was.
However, we are faced with an extraordinarily dangerous time ahead. In the debate that we held in December, we heard a great deal of detailed information from noble Lords about the horrors that have been committed by the ZANU-PF regime. Like the noble Lord, Lord St John, I have no wish to go over those once more. They have been well documented, not least in the Physicians for Human Rights document, to which my noble friend Lord Elton referred.
Reference has also been made to a recent meeting of the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, with leading speakers travelling from Zimbabwe to address parliamentarians and other interested parties about the news straight from the heart of that country. We were told very clearly that a low-intensity conflict is

301
already under way. There is now the startling realisation that ordinary, law-abiding people are bracing themselves for an outbreak of mass violence if the will of the people to determine their leader is frustrated by illegal action at the election. The noble Lord, Lord St John, said that he believed that the country was on the brink of civil war. I find it difficult to argue against that proposition. To have heard from the head of the armed forces in that country that his forces would not recognise any victor other than ZANU-PF is a chilling indication of what lies ahead.
My firm belief is that at this very late stage only stark choices are left. We know that there has been reluctance in some quarters overtly to criticise the leadership of Zimbabwe, which has been so closely associated with the African independence struggle. We know that some western developed countries have also steered shy of criticism of the ZANU regime, fearing being branded as meddling in internal African affairs.
But surely all right-minded parties now realise that this issue is not about white farmers, land redistribution, African self-determination or former colonial powers; it is about the terrifying lengths to which one party will go to risk the very destruction of its country in order to retain power. We cannot stand by helplessly.
The Commonwealth is clearly an important organisation in binding countries together with a common thread. But at the centre of that organisation must lie respect for human rights and democracy. Surely the Commonwealth must now take firm action to indicate that it will not tolerate a member which flagrantly violates those very basic freedoms. If it is not adherence to those common values which binds together the Commonwealth, what is the point of that organisation?
It is my belief that if the Commonwealth fails at this hurdle there could not be a clearer-cut example of flagrant disregard for democracy and human rights, and, to my mind, that organisation would be severely weakened. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, will be able to update us as to what happened at today's meeting. My initial understanding is that no decisive action was taken but that there were merely indications of some potential action in the future. That action was not specified.
I certainly welcome the recent action taken by the European Union and, indeed, the role which the UK has taken in that body to impose a deadline for the acceptance of international monitors. I, too, caution against watering down that requirement. We must also bear in mind that very many people would say that it would now be impossible for free and fair elections to take place in Zimbabwe, whatever international action was to take place. While there would be a very powerful argument for saying that, I continue to believe that we should take whatever action we can on an international basis to ensure as far as possible the best chance of the elections being as free as they might be.
302
To my mind, there is no doubt that historic empty threats have devalued the currency. If there is one point that I wish to leave with your Lordships it is that the focus must now be on making it absolutely clear and beyond any doubt that the international community will not recognise as legitimate, nor will it tolerate, any government who seize their mandate by force. Furthermore, punitive action will certainly be taken in the form of targeted sanctions, and the target would be ZANU-PF leaders.
Surely experience has shown us that the ZANU regime is not overly concerned with its international reputation, nor with the health and prosperity of its subjects. However, it does understand restrictions on personal freedoms and it has plenty of experience in that field.
If we fail to stand firm, we shall be guilty of complicity with the outrageous attacks on human rights which are now being perpetrated. Surely we must give a sense of support to every Zimbabwean in the bush, villages, towns and cities that they have not been abandoned.
8.21 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for initiating tonight's debate. I declare an interest in that I visited Angola last September. That visit was organised by UNICEF.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, drew attention to the fact that 30 per cent of Angolan children die before the age of five. I would add that 55 per cent of five year-olds grow to only 70 per cent of their normal size. They have been stunted due to malnourishment. Armed conflict within that country has continued almost unabated for 40 years. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, referred to the fact that many of the roads are so heavily mined that food and other supplies to much of the interior have to be transported by air at vast expense.
Angola is a petro-diamond state. It is the largest supplier of oil to the United States. Its reserves of diamonds rival those of Botswana, and may well exceed them. Yet hitherto that mineral wealth has been largely used to fund civil strife. In such a context, it is imperative that the international community works in concert to promote democracy and sustainable development in Angola. There are foundations upon which we can build. Some areas—the City of Lubango in Huila Province and the whole of Namib Province, for example—relatively are prospering. The governor of the Central Bank has brought down inflation from triple to double figures. It is hoped to reduce the figure to below 10 per cent this year. International financial institutions have an important role in promoting that economic success.
The United States has made considerable efforts to cultivate its relationship with Angola. President dos Santos was due to meet with President Bush last September. That meeting was postponed following that month's terrible events. Angolans are resilient. Their civil society is strong and growing stronger. The

303
churches reach out into rebel-held areas to which even the NGOs cannot gain access. Fresh voices are making themselves heard. New perspectives are forcing themselves into mainstream public discourse. The Government of Angola are increasingly not having it all their own way. President dos Santos is due to stand down this year. That may be an opportunity for positive change. While democratic elections have not been held since the early nineties, some commentators believe that the prospects for peace and elections are improving. Outside investors in Angola put continual pressure on the government to become more transparent and, in particular, to make plain the final destination of their oil revenues.
There are hard questions to put to the Government of Angola. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, enumerated several. Why does much of the population of the capital, Luanda, pay 40 per cent of its income for clean water? But hard questions cannot be expected to reach receptive ears unless the international community is prepared to prove its long-term commitment to Angola. Therefore, it is welcome that Her Majesty's Government are in continuing dialogue with the Government of Angola. Visits from Ministers and senior parliamentarians seem to be fairly regular in the UK. Recently, Dr Sozo, majority leader of the Angolan Parliament, visited the UK Parliament and spoke of his country's work on producing a new constitution. The Angolan Government are interested in our success in Northern Ireland and in what they may learn from that to help resolve their internal conflict.
They wish to develop special trading relationships with the UK and appear interested in membership of the Commonwealth. That is the kind of foundation on which the international community and the UK may be able to build. Development assistance is a fundamental part of the rebuilding process and should be added to the current humanitarian aid. The situation in Angola is one of continuing crisis, but past and present ambassadors from the UK in Luanda have strongly urged investment in areas of stability within Angola, such as Lubango in Huila Province, and Namib Province. Those areas in the south and southwest of the country are some of the best watered in Africa. They have the potential to provide a thriving agricultural and fishing industry. They could provide a model for the people and government of Angola and demonstrate that there is a workable and attractive alternative to civil war and to extremes of wealth and poverty.
Development assistance to such regions would be immensely valuable. Such assistance could be channelled to church organisations and NGOs to ensure its effectiveness. I would ask the Minister whether such proposals are under consideration in this country and whether they are likely to be forthcoming from the European Union. The Government are already taking steps to nurture good relations with the progressive elements within Angola. However, the Government's resources are limited. Most especially, the time of M in isters is a scarce commodity. Therefore, might back-bench parliamentarians across the
304
European Union have a greater role to play in developing the essential long-term relationships with the progressive elements in Angola?
On my visit I was most struck by the sense of isolation and, on occasions, abandonment that the people within Angola experience. I hope that your Lordships may contemplate visiting Angola, if you have not already done so, perhaps under the aegis of the Inter-Parliamentary Union or the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and perhaps think of encouraging our colleagues in this country and across Europe to undertake such visits. There is much good work being done there which deserves and needs encouragement. The churches and NGOs, in particular, do phenomenal work with street children. They are helped, for instance, to build their own homes, which they then take possession of. We can learn a great deal from the resilience and resourcefulness of the Angolan people I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, this has been an extremely wide-ranging debate. Indeed, when we drafted the topic for debate it was intended to be as wide-ranging as possible. However, I apologise to the Minister as this debate will perhaps tax her encyclopaedic knowledge of the African continent in the extreme. I shall not give the Minister 100 questions to answer, as I usually do. I have just three questions with which I shall end. I realise that she may not be able to answer them tonight. However, I would be grateful if she could write to me.
I should like to focus on three issues: good governance, problems of conflict, and international aid. In debates such as this, it is our tendency to count DfID as almost omnipotent in its ability to deal with intractable problems. However, having seen the process of development of DfID's policies over the years, one aspect which I believe will lead to sustainable development in Africa is the concept of good governance. Good governance is the cornerstone on which stable democracies can be based. However, one of the problems in Africa is that an association between democracy and government is too closely made.
An issue which I have often raised in your Lordships' House is that government is not the only aspect of democracy. Indeed, one of the reasons that email addresses to the House of Commons and the House of Lords include the word "parliament" and not "dot.gov" is because Parliament includes opposition and the Government.
An interesting piece of graffiti that was spray-canned on to the road during the May Day disturbances a couple of years ago stated that, "It doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in". That is one of the problems which has faced many African countries. Therefore, one of the aims of DfID—it has been undertaken in many of the policies and also in the excellent work by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—is to build

305
the capacity of opposition parties, not just to fight elections, but to fulfil their important function of being government in waiting. I know that we on these Benches take very seriously our role as government in waiting.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, laughed. But I seem to remember that it was not that long ago that he stood at the Dispatch Box and the Labour Party was the government in waiting.
That is what makes stable government and is the basis of democracy. Too many problems have been based on the liberation elections that took place after independence, which led to governments which did not leave power. Indeed the "winner take all" mentality is still exhibited in some of the elections that I have monitored and in many countries that have suffered from one-party rule.
The second matter is the issue of conflict—which many noble Lords have discussed—between states, but more commonly, civil war in the countries of Mozambique, Angola and Sierra Leone. The Government handled the recent crisis in Sierra Leone with a great deal of courage and fortitude. The way that the British Army was seen to act in Sierra Leone is a matter of pride throughout the House. It gave resolve to the UN forces in such a way that their credibility was sustained. The R UF have unfortunately not been able to move into the role of constructive democratic opposition. But its guerrilla tactics have largely—although not totally—been brought to an end. However, Sierra Leone is an interesting example of a country that is in the transition to democracy. Great perils still await it. Just changing to having elections will not solve a lot of the problems there.
The major issue that is causing so many difficulties in Africa is the collapse into civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I remember the debate that took place in this House when Zaire looked on the point of collapse. Some of the worse nightmare scenarios have come to pass.
The vacuum has sucked in other countries. Africa is unusual in that its countries rarely take part in conflicts outside their own borders. But the great wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has been mentioned by many noble Lords, has drawn in so many other countries. My noble friend Lord Avebury—who is not in his place but is on the other side of the Chamber at the moment—made an extremely educated and informed contribution to the debate tonight. I know that the Minister will heed many of the comments he made.
One issue that should be raised is that, if sanctions are undertaken, those, especially in the Zimbabwean Government, who are directly benefiting from the pillage of Congo's resources should have their bank accounts frozen. Companies that are involved in this should be tracked down and have the full weight of the law moved against them.
306
Under the issue of conflict, I want to add the issue of HIV and AIDS. In researching the issue of Africa, I came across the International Crisis Group's website. I can recommend the site to noble Lords; it is under crisisweb. Some lines caught my attention. They are:
"HIV/AIDS must be viewed as a security crisis with the potential to affect peoples, states and the international community in a similar fashion to more traditional forms of conflict … HIV/AIDS is profoundly destabilising in several important ways. When prevalent in epidemic proportions, HIV/AIDS can destroy, like war, the fundamental elements of a nation: individuals, families and communities; economic and social institutions; military and police forces. In this sense. HIV/AIDS undercuts human security, harming economic and social stability and breaking down governance and social cohesion".
I very much agree with that view. One statistic that sent chills down my spine was that by 2005 it is envisaged that there will be 100 million victims of this terrible scourge, the majority of them in sub-Saharan Africa.
The other issue that I wanted to dwell on was that of aid. I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, in his call for a movement towards the 0.7 per cent target. We have had many debates about reaching the 0.7 per cent target. I applaud the Government's attempt to raise the aid budget. However, I was struck by a recurrent theme that we should be aiming not for the 0.7 per cent but for the actual amount of money that is spent. That has been put forward in a number of debates. I believe that we should be aiming for the 0.7 per cent because, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, if the international community went for that, vast amounts of money could be made available. That could be used specifically to deal with the problem of unsustainable debt.
Many noble Lords have dwelt on the subject of Zimbabwe. It is an extremely sensitive subject at the moment. However, I want to put forward a point that has not been raised as strongly as it should. It is the opposition party in Zimbabwe which wants the elections to take place. It believes that it can win the election. It is important that the people of Zimbabwe are given the opportunity, which might conceivably happen, to resolve the difficulties that they have through free and fair elections. Whether the elections are free and fair, and whether we should ever use the expression free and fair is debatable. However, the international community is moving extremely slowly. I believe that the Commonwealth and the EU have a role to move strongly to bring about targeted sanctions.
I finish on the three questions that I said that I would ask the Minister. Two of them concern Zambia. It has recently gone through the election process. There was little mention of it in the press. First, have the Government received the final report of the EU observation mission on the Zambian elections? I believe that the EU mission thinks that the interim report that it has presented is its final report. Secondly, what action do the Government intend to take regarding the accusations of irregularities in the recent presidential elections?

307
The third question concerns Cite d'Ivoire where the leader of our sister party, Dr Alassane Ouattara, the former Prime Minister was banned from standing in the elections on accusations regarding the nationality of his parents and therefore himself. Can the Minister give us any indication of what action they have taken over that banning order?
8.40 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on initiating this important debate. In my limited time, I cannot follow his wide-ranging and thought-provoking speech on southern Africa. I will concentrate, inevitably, on Zimbabwe, as the situation there is poisoning the whole region and undermining efforts to promote democracy, stability and sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa.
Zimbabwe is a subject about which many noble Lords, rightly, feel strongly. Like other noble Lords, I have received some distressing letters and e-mails from Zimbabwe. The year 2001 was a tough one for most Zimbabweans. The past few months have been the toughest. Rampant inflation, increased violence, politically motivated detentions, selective application of the law and the passing of unjust new laws have combined to plunge many into the depths of depression. I hope that tonight's proceedings will go some way to persuade Zimbabweans of all ages and the courageous opposition that they have our support and encouragement. Many Zimbabweans feel let down and betrayed by the international community.
I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary has been rebuffed late in the day by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which decided today not to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. That sends out the wrong message to Mugabe. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said that incompetence, corruption and tyranny were leading to South Africa being particularly threatened. The South African Government have been slow to realise the danger. Perhaps the sinking rand, which has lost a third of its value in the past year, with the resulting drop in inward investment, coupled with the influx of Zimbabwean refugees, may be better at getting a warning through to Mr Mbeki than the British Government have been.
The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, rightly said that African solutions were needed for African problems. The solution for Zimbabwe rests in regional action by Zimbabwe's neighbours, supported by an international coalition, demonstrating our support. In that context, what help are the Government giving to Botswana and other neighbouring countries to help cope with the hundreds of refugees fleeing from Zimbabwe each week?
One's first reaction to the recent statements on Zimbabwe by Her Majesty's Government and the European Union is to say, "At last". What has been blindingly obvious to many of us for months—that dialogue with Mugabe is a waste of time and that he reacts to appeasement like any other dictator, by
308
pushing his aims still harder against what he takes, rightly so far, as weakness—finally seems to have dawned in Government policy circles. Constructive engagement with the Mugabe regime has demonstrably failed and is failing. The Government's response has been—if I recall the phrase correctly—quiet diplomacy. Meanwhile, the chief justice was terrorised into resigning, and other independent judges have been ousted; newspaper editors have been arrested and tortured; criticism of Mugabe has been criminalised; and evidence mounts daily of harassment, assault, torture and murder conducted by the Mugabe regime. My noble friend Lord Elton mentioned the report by Physicians for Human Rights/Denmark. It makes for chilling reading.
The wave of political violence has been so brutal that there is virtually no law and order in the country. My noble friends Lord Elton, Lord Blaker, Lord Goschen and Lady Park of Monmouth gave the House examples of the tyranny. I must congratulate my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth on taking on the high commissioner the other night and winning their public debate by a mile.
The chances of free and fair elections arc already extremely poor. If—1 repeat—if monitors are allowed in from the EU or other international bodies, it will be essential for them to report before the voting takes place on whether they believe that the conditions for free and fair elections exist. It would be pointless, after an election has been rigged and after Mugabe has proclaimed a victory—whatever the real result—for us to wring our hands and say that the elections were not fair. By then, it will be too late. If the Government here—and the EU more widely—are to have any credibility on the issue, we must act now.
The immediate priority is to ensure that we get the monitors into Zimbabwe, although it is already almost too late. I have two specific questions for the Minister, and I hope for answers tonight. First, can she give a clear and categoric assurance that, in the absence of monitors being in place on 3rd February, targeted sanctions will immediately be imposed? It is essential that President Mugabe be left in no doubt about that and that there be no question of any further prevarication. As my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth said, British observers must he part of any EU delegation. Secondly, what about the role of the BBC—as my noble friend Lord Blaker asked—and other British media? Has there been some agreement to exclude the BBC from election coverage? If so, that is shameful. How can that be squared with the requirement that international media be allowed to operate freely? Nothing could send a worse signal about the feebleness of the EU approach, particularly to other unacceptable regimes. I look forward to the Minister's response to those vital questions.
If there are to be targeted sanctions, the House has a right to know how they will work, how they will be enforced and whether they will truly meet their objectives. How will the United States be involved? How will the sanctions be co-ordinated between the EU countries, the United States and, I hope, the Commonwealth? It is essential that the Mugalbe

309
regime be targeted and that any sanctions do not merely add to the misery and poverty already suffered by the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe.
The deterioration of Zimbabwe has been allowed to proceed unchecked for too long. If Britain is meaningfully to involve itself in sub-Saharan Africa, we must do all that we can to promote democracy and long-term economic stability, as essential safeguards against tyranny, poverty and the abuse of human rights. Zimbabweans are desperately looking to the world community to do something positive that will stop the state-sponsored terrorism. We welcome the Government's recent concern over Zimbabwe, but we urge them to translate their good intentions into action.
8.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for opening this important debate and for making a wide-ranging speech that set out the main challenges and opportunities.
The promotion of democracy and sustainable development in Africa is a key element of the Government's policy in sub-Saharan Africa. In the time available, I am unable to do justice to the breadth of the issues raised in the debate, but I should like to address the specific issues that have been raised in the context of the Government's overall strategy of working in partnership with African countries to bring about long-term sustainable change. I should also like to take the opportunity to thank noble Lords who have made positive comments, about the role of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development, and myself in the process.
There is no doubt that the development challenges facing Africa are daunting. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Joffe, have referred to them this evening. I shall not repeat them. However, on current trends, the region is unlikely to meet any of the millennium development goals, as the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, said.
But as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. pointed out, despite the challenges, there has been significant progress in many areas. In Sierra Leone, the government have reasserted control over the whole territory, and elections are on course for May of this year. The ceasefire in the Democratic Republic of Congo has held for nearly a year, and a start has been made in the peace process. More than 20 African countries achieved a growth rate of 4 per cent in 2001. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is of course quite right to say that we need to see growth rates of 5 per cent and over, but I think that it is encouraging that so many countries have managed to achieve 4 per cent.
310
There were successful elections in seven African countries in 2001, with peaceful changes of government in three. As President Mbeki of South Africa has said:
"There are already signs of hope and progress. Democratic regimes that are committed to the protection of human rights, people-centred development and market-oriented economies are on the increase. African people have begun to demonstrate their refusal to accept poor economic and political leadership. These developments are, however, uneven and inadequate and need to be expedited further".
Seeing Africa's success stories "expedited further" is at the heart of UK policy towards Africa, whether in the field of democracy, or of sustainable development more widely. We are keen to work with a range of partners to achieve this. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will be pleased to hear that what we are seeking is a partnership. The noble Lord spoke specifically about the need for self-help.
The nature of our partnership with African leaders and their people is fundamental. The emergence of the New Partnership for Africa's Development, NePAD, opens up fresh possibilities. NePAD is designed to place African countries on a path to sustainable growth and development. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, who spoke of the need for leadership to come from within Africa, that one of the important themes of NePAD is that it is clearly an African-led process, with a strong sense of African responsibility in responding to the continent's challenges.
Other important features are that it concerns sound political and economic governance. That is recognised as central to Africa's development. African leaders are seeking a new type of partnership with Africa's international friends, based on shared responsibility and mutual interest.
It is clear from many of the speeches that have been made in our debate that noble Lords think that much can be achieved if the political will is there. There is a new political will emerging among a number of African leaders at present. They are ready to engage more vigorously with the full range of Africa's problems—from conflict prevention to corruption. They want Africa to take its proper place in the international community and to access the benefits of globalisation. They want a new, more genuine partnership with us, one where Africans take primary responsibility for meeting Africa's challenges. We want to build on that new political will.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has pledged to make Africa a priority for this Government. It was in that spirit that he took the lead, with other G8 leaders, at the Genoa summit last June, in welcoming what was then the New African Initiative and is now the New Partnership for Africa's Development. In the same spirit, he has emphasised, most recently in his Mansion House speech in November last year, that the anti-terrorist agenda has not deflected us. Indeed, it has reinforced our determination.
This is an ambitious agenda, which I believe echoes the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, but we have an opportunity, and that

311
opportunity exists now. That is because an important part of our response to NePAD is the development of the G8 Action Plan for Africa. I am closely involved in this process as the Prime Minister's personal representative, working with other G8 personal representatives and in regular dialogue with NePAD counterparts.
The objective of the G8 Action Plan for Africa is to help to define a new way of co-operating with Africa. Its aim is to articulate on behalf of G8 countries a willingness to work together in a framework of partnership and mutual accountability to address the policy constraints that inhibit Africa's development.
We are looking at a range of issues, such as economic growth, trade and investment. The Department for International Development has been engaged in capacity building to assist developing countries to negotiate in key fora. We have begun to see the fruits of that in, for example, the recent discussions at Doha. We are looking at peace and security, governance, health, education and knowledge; and of course we want to look at the quantity and quality of aid, and the issue of aid effectiveness.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned in particular the need to endorse the 0.7 per cent target. This Government have always said that moving towards 0.7 per cent is an aim. We recognise that, given the low base from which we started in 1997, this will take some time. However, I think that it is important to recognise that UK bilateral aid for sub-Saharan Africa increased from £434 million in 1997–98 to £757 million in 2000–01. Over the same period, the proportion of DID bilateral resources allocated to the region increased from 32 per cent to 45 per cent. We are also working hard to increase the effectiveness of what we spend.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked what we are doing specifically in the area of democratisation and election support. The Department for International Development has programmes in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Given the time available, I shall write to the noble Earl outlining in detail some of those programmes. I should like also to assure the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the process of working with parliamentarians remains important, not only for the work of the Department for International Development, but also for the work of the British Council, which I have seen in many of the countries that I have recently visited.
Our approach is multilateral. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, mentioned in particular work with our EU partners and the importance of us working in partnership. The European Union, with the UK as an active member, has a vital role to play in promoting democracy and sustainable development in Africa. The central objective of the EU's Partnership Agreement with the 77 countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP) is to reduce and eventually to eradicate poverty, while contributing to sustainable development and to the gradual integration of ACP countries into the world economy.
312
The partnership, under the Cotonou agreement, has a strong political foundation. It is underpinned by a set of core values or "essential elements": respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, whose violation can lead to the suspension of aid. Good governance is considered to be a "fundamental element" of the Cotonou agreement. The EU will make its own response to the NePAD proposals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. asked specifically about EU aid effectiveness. Noble Lords will know that we have been at the forefront of discussions to reform the EU aid programme, to focus its efforts on poverty elimination arid to make the programme more effective. I share the aspiration of the noble Baroness to make the EU the best and most effective aid donor, second, ofcourse, only to ourselves.
Let me turn to conflict in sub-Saharan Africa, an issue mentioned by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Avebury. the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Not only is conflict one of the main obstacles to reducing poverty, upholding human rights and achieving sustainable development in Africa, i.t is also a threat to global security.
I have just returned from New York. Yesterday, the UN Security Council devoted its debate to conflict in Africa. We also received a briefing from the Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Armed conflicts in Angola, Sudan and Somalia. where numerous peacekeeping efforts have failed, are now all but ignored. In those war-ravaged nations. millions have been condemned to despair and misery. In the Great Lakes region, a dozen African nations have, one way or another, been sucked into a series of interlocking conflicts since the mid-1990s. Many other countries are affected by or are at risk of violent conflict.
There are some positive signs. I mentioned Sierre Leone. Hostilities between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which claimed the lives of many thousands, have also been brought to a close. Serious efforts are under way involving regional states and the United Nations to tackle the biggest challenge of all—the conflicts in the DRC and Burundi.
We need new approaches to deal with the changing and diverse nature of violent conflict in Africa. The challenge to the international system is not just to prevent or end hostilities in conflict zones but something far greater. It needs to help to transform regional and national political economies that are conditioned by violent conflicts into healthy systems based on political participation, social and economic inclusion, and respect for human rights and the rule of law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, the noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso, Lord Astor of Hever, Lord Elton and Lord Blaker, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, all spoke powerfully about Zimbabwe. It is significant that the action called for is always action in which the British Government are already engaged. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said that no action has been taken until now, but I must take issue with that statement. I have tried hard to ensure that noble Lords

313
understand the Government's approach. We have made our views clear. We have had a regular dialogue with the people of Zimbabwe—including civil society and opposition groups. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Park, to whom I have spoken about this issue on many occasions and whose advice I have welcomed, that we have been in discussion with all the key influences.
Noble Lords find it difficult to accept, as do I, that we are dealing with a government who are not interested in upholding rights or in the international community's concerns. The Zimbabwean Government do not put the interests of their own people at the top of the agenda, which is why the approach we took has limits. However, we have taken a number of measures in response to the situation in Zimbabwe. There is a complete embargo on arms sales to Zimbabwe, a cut in non-humanitarian aid and the withdrawal of our military training team. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that we have been trying to secure peace and democracy—and we have been working consistently not only with the people of Zimbabwe but with the country's partners in the region, with the European Union, the Commonwealth and the United States to achieve both.
The multilateral approach to Zimbabwe is the most effective. International concern is reflected in four initiatives from the European Union, the Commonwealth, the Southern African Development Community and the United States that are complementary and mutually reinforcing. At the General Affairs Council on Monday, European Union foreign ministers decided to close the Article 96 consultation and to implement targeted sanctions if the government of Zimbabwe prevent the deployment of an EU observation mission starting by 3rd February 2002 or later prevent the mission from operating effectively—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, understands that point—likewise, if the government of Zimbabwe deny the international media free access to cover the election; or if there is a serious deterioration in terms of a worsening of the human rights situation or attacks on the opposition; or if the election is assessed as not being free and fair.
As I understand it, the government of Zimbabwe do not want the BBC to cover the election and it has, to all intents and purposes, been banned. We deplore that position.
Today, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group met, reviewed the situation in Zimbabwe, and expressed deep concern at the continued violence, political intimidation and actions against the freedom and independence of the media. I have asked for that statement to be made available in the Printed Paper Office because I am unable to read more from it now.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker and the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, asked about Export Control Bill. That measure does not undermine the Government's ability to take account of sustainable development in the export licensing process, but enhances the state of all consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria—including those relating to sustainable development.
314
The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord St. John of Bletso, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about Angola. We operate a two-track policy to support the existing sanctions regime against Unita as a means of pressing it towards dialogue while working on the Angolan Government to improve their humanitarian performance, tackle corruption and create genuine democratic space for possible dialogue.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the exploitation of the DRC's natural resources. We fully supported the creation of the UN panel to investigate, and an extension of the panel's mandate so that it can continue to monitor exploitation and its links with the continuation of conflict. If the noble Lord will permit, I shall write to him about Victor Bout.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked about the World Summit on Sustainable Development and my noble friend Lord Hunt spoke about a range of environmental initiatives that have received little media attention. Environmental issues are critical and our priorities for the WSSD encapsulate all three pillars of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on Zambia.
Time is against me. This debate has highlighted some of the serious challenges faced by Africa, but it has indicated also the level of commitment that exists in the UK and among Africa's partners more widely, to help to meet those challenges. It is a long task but Africa's leaders are showing a fresh determination to tackle it. We have rightly been among the first to welcome the new partnership and shall continue to do all that we can to build on it.
9.7 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we are tight up against our three-hour limit. Very briefly, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I remind the House that we in the West are implicated in the development of Africa by our share in its corruption through off-shore tax havens. That makes the whole question of action against tax havens—many of which are under British sovereignty—extremely important.
Finally, we should remember that Zimbabwe is not the only country of concern in Africa. Many speakers have stressed that the future of the Congo, Nigeria and so on is also very important. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers almost exactly three hours after we started.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Religious Offences Bill [H-L]
9.8 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I express my warmest thanks, first, to the Public Bill Office for its timely and effective advice on drafting; secondly, to the staff of the Library for the excellent notes they have produced; and, thirdly, to the Home Office for

315
producing what is known as a Keeling schedule demonstrating how the Public Order Act would look if the amendments proposed in the Bill were made thereto. It was a matter of complaint during our proceedings on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill that it was extremely difficult to look backwards and forwards between that Bill and the Public Order Act. The production of the Keeling schedule is a tremendous advantage in trying to understand exactly what these proposals will do.
As your Lordships know, the proposals in the Bill have been canvassed on many previous occasions, most recently, as I said, during the proceedings on the anti-terrorism Bill. I shall refer, first, to Clause 2—I shall explain later why I am doing it this way round—the provisions of which are identical to the provisions on incitement to religious hatred that were left out of the anti-terrorism Bill—probably not because the House was against them per se, as I judged the tone of the discussions then, but rather on the grounds that it was considered unsatisfactory to put them in a Bill dealing with the effects of the dreadful crimes of llth September and the consequent changes that we needed to make in our legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for instance, said that there was a case but that it was inappropriate to deal with it in that way.
I should point out—it was not a matter which received any attention during those proceedings—that in Northern Ireland provisions almost identical to these have been on the statute book since 1987. Presumably they have acted as a deterrent to religious incitement there. There is exactly the same wording as is already in Part 3 of the Public Order Act in relation to racial hatred offences and, as far as I am aware, there have been no difficulties of interpretation or of limiting freedom of expression and other of the anxieties expressed in our recent discussions.
People in Northern Ireland are well known for expressing themselves about religion in a robust manner, and the law has not altered that. Nor is the existence of the law a matter of controversy, as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission would confirm.
Returning to Great Britain, the Law Commission considered this matter in 1981, when it recalled that it had first been looked at as long ago as 1965 during the framing of the Race Relations Act. The proposition in 1981 was that the words "or religious" might be added to the law against incitement to racial hatred—as in this Bill—but at that time it was not considered a significant problem. In 1985 the Law Commission again considered the matter, but observed,
"how closely linked are the concepts of a 'racial group' … and membership of a group which is distinguished by … a common religion".
Once again it concluded that legislating against incitement to hatred of people holding particular religious beliefs could be "a relatively simple task" on the lines now proposed.
If it is common ground that incitement to hatred of religious groups which are not defined by ethnic origin—including Muslims and Christians—does
316
happen, then the question is whether it has now become a real and urgent threat to society requiring legislation, which it was not when the Law Commission reported in 1985. But if it is now, then, as the Law Commission foreshadowed, the logical way of dealing with it is to follow the existing law on religious incitement in Northern Ireland and the law on racial incitement in Britain as closely as possible. It would be intolerable to have one set of provisions in Northern Ireland on religious incitement and another completely different set in the rest of the country.
It would also be very confusing if the courts had to deal with dissimilar laws on racial and religious incitement, considering that in some cases ethnic and religious groups are one and the same. The definition of "religious hatred" follows exactly the same format as the existing definition of "racial hatred" in the Public Order Act, and the very nature of the phenomenon is identical. We are talking about hatred against a group of persons, whether they are defined by reference to their religion or race, as the case may be.
We have discussed at some length how this proposal can be reconciled with freedom of expression. I shall not go over the ground covered by the Attorney-General in relation to the anti-terrorism Bill when he explained how his discretion would be used to sanction criminal proceedings. I merely say that I hope that his draft guidance would apply to this Bill, as it would have done on that occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that he accepted the principle that legislation in this area was desirable, as indeed did others in all quarters of the House. They felt, however, that incitement to religious hatred was important enough to be considered on its own. If that was the main reason why the House decided to remove what was then Clause 39 from the anti-terrorism Bill, and not because your Lordships considered there was no need for an offence of this kind, I hope that Clause 2 of this Bill meets the objection.
I now turn to Clause 1 of the Bill. I am dealing with it this way round because of the statement made during discussion on the anti-terrorism Bill by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark that,
"were the clauses regarding the incitement to religious hatred already on the statute book … we, from the Church of England, would view the departure of the blasphemy law with much easier hearts".—[Official Report, 10/12/01; col. 1178.]
I believe that he was making the point, although he did not spell it out, that extreme conduct which might now be dealt with under the blasphemy law could sometimes be classified as a public order offence. But whereas blasphemy is treated as an offence only against the Christian religion, the religious incitement provisions in this Bill apply to a group from any religion or from none.
I ought to emphasise, because it seems to be widely misunderstood, that blasphemy has a much more limited meaning in law than it has in the dictionary. There is no prohibition on speaking or publishing opinions hostile to Christianity, or on denial of the existence of God. But the existing law on blasphemy applies only to the Christian religion. Incidentally, the

317
notion that we have a choice between abolition and extension of the present uncertain law to all religions is a non-starter. If we wanted to encourage rivalry and animosity between religions, that would be a good way to do it. It was suggested at one time by a minority in the Law Commission that a law could be framed which extended blasphemy to every other religion.
The definition of blasphemous libel adopted by the trial judge in the case of Whitehouse v Lemon was the publication of any writing concerning God or Christ, the Christian religion, the Bible or some sacred subject using words that are scurrilous, abusive or offensive. The offence consists of attacking religious entities, not the religious group which believes in that particular set of entities. But the language used might be capable of having both effects: it could be at the same time "scurrilous, abusive or offensive" about the objects of a religion—of Christianity in the case of the existing law—and "threatening, abusive or insulting" and intended or likely to stir up hatred against the set of persons belonging to the faith which held those objects to be sacred.
There are many examples of this in the history of anti-semitism, where extreme criticism of the Jews' denial of Christ's divinity could not be separated from incitement to hatred of the Jews as a people. Christian theologians from St John Chrysostom onwards portrayed the Jews as Christ-killers, and it was not surprising that the use of that kind of language led to the social exclusion of Jews and the pogroms of medieval Europe, as well as being a factor in the aetiology of the holocaust, as many authors have shown.
There will be some circumstances, however, which theoretically could lead to prosecution under the blasphemy law but will no longer do so under the Public Order Act if this Bill is passed. It could hardly be said, for instance, that the poem in the Whitehouse v Lemon case was either intended to stir up religious hatred or was likely to do so, and such a case, if it occurred today, would not get to the stage of a full investigation by the police. But would a private prosecution under an 1866 statute be allowed by a judge if that case or one like it arose today? If those circumstances did ever arise, would not the Attorney-General use his power to take the case over and then offer no evidence? In 1976 there was still a great deal of homophobia, and Mary Whitehouse was a highly motivated and effective campaigner. The Gay News case should be seen as an aberration, without which we could now be looking back on 80 years without any court proceedings on blasphemy charges.
Subsection (2) of Clause 1 repeals all the religious offences listed by the Law Commission in its 1985 report on offences against religion and public worship. I apologise for the error, as Sections 3 and 4 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888 have been repealed already. It was fairly difficult to go through all those ancient statutes and pick out the parts that were still in force.
318
The only provision that has been used in recent times is Section 2 of the 1860 Act, which criminalises any person who is guilty of,
"riotous, violent or indecent behaviour",
in a place of worship or burial ground. This was used against protesters who interrupted a service attended by members of Mr Harold Wilson's government in 1968. They were protesting against what they alleged to be Mr Wilson's support for American policy in Vietnam. It was again used in 1973—I think that that was the last occasion—when persons were convicted under that section for having performed ceremonies to raise the dead in a churchyard. I am not sure why it should be a crime to try to raise the dead in a churchyard but not in any other place.
Our debates on these matters only a few weeks ago showed that your Lordships wanted an opportunity to examine them more thoroughly with a view to reaching well-thought-out decisions. Both religious incitement and blasphemy have been discussed on numerous occasions, but we have never had the benefit of knowing what is the sense of the faith communities and, indeed, of those who belong to no religion, who are now probably more numerous than any single religion.
It has been suggested that we might now obtain that advice by referring the Bill to a Select Committee—a practice that has been followed sparingly over the past half century. I should welcome such an opportunity for settling these issues definitively. As there will be many differences of opinion about the detail, I hope that there will be common ground that we should now face up to the two related issues that are dealt with in the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. (Lord Avebury.)
9.21 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on introducing the Bill. He has a long and distinguished career in human rights, equality and justice. I hope that the Bill will reach the statute book so that we can perhaps bring a religious discrimination Bill to the House for your Lordships' consideration in due course.
I am not against blasphemy laws. Indeed, I should very much like all religions and people to be protected from insults and attacks equally in law. As a Muslim, I am duty bound to respect equally Abraham, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed, peace be upon them. However, certain common law offences relating to religion and public worship are out of date and relate to only one section of our community. It is imperative that we amend our laws so that they are relevant to the multi-religious Britain of today.
Although the Law Commission in its 1985 report concluded that the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel should be abolished without replacement, two law commissioners argued for similar legislation to that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

319
I pay tribute to the Home Secretary for attempting to introduce religious hatred offences in the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act. I also thank the shadow Home Secretary, Mr Oliver Letwin, for acknowledging in the other place that vulnerable communities need to be protected—especially Muslim communities in the present crisis.
The European monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia has recently reported:
"Prejudice and hostility against Islamic communities are prevalent in all European member states, and have often led to discrimination against Muslims and their exclusion from mainstream socio-economic activities."
Unfortunately, we have all witnessed an increase in such prejudice in recent months.
Since 11th September, attacks on the Muslim, Sikh and other Arab and Asian communities have increased by four times in some places. The Commission for Racial Equality reported an increase in attacks of more than 75 per cent on the Asian community in Tower Hamlets, for example. Far right racist groups openly attack the Muslim communities in the media and on their websites. There is no law to bring those people to justice. Muslim women wearing the hijah, Arab women in particular, have been subject to verbal abuse. Asian men and women in traditional clothes and Sikh men wearing turbans have all experienced harassment and mosques have even been fire-bombed. Racist groups have openly displayed posters and distributed leaflets inciting religious hatred in the north of England; and, sadly, even a few Asian religious groups offered support to the BNP in the hate campaign against Muslim communities.
There has been a growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the western media. The intentional use of anti-Islam terminology has featured in the media: words like, "fundamentalism", "terrorism has been linked to Islam", "militant Muslims", "Muslim terrorist groups", "Islamic terrorists" and "Muslim warlords" have been frequently used. International terrorism became synonymous with the Islamic religion. British Muslims have been at the receiving end of religious hatred, and yet have been expected to prove their loyalty to Britain and their "Britishness" time after time.
I have congratulated the Government on many occasions for the Derby and the Cambridge reports on religious discrimination. I joined the Labour Party 26 years ago because Labour stood for equality, fairness and justice. That is why I am proud that our Government are showing their intolerance to the incitement of religious hatred, and are leading the way for a culturally and religiously diverse but harmonious society. I feel proud to stand before audiences in Asia and the Middle-East, Europe and America, to say that British Muslims have more rights in the United Kingdom than anywhere else in the world. Yet, we are still not equal in law. Jewish and Sikh communities are protected under the Race Relations Act 1976—and rightly so—but other communities are not. That is why we must support this Bill, and also introduce religious discrimination legislation.
320
The Public Order Act of 1986 has two basic requirements of an offence being classifiable as inciting hatred: first, the words must be threatening, abusive or insulting; and, secondly, the words or behaviour are intended to, or do, incite hatred. Implementation of Clause 2 of the Religious Offences Bill (formerly Clause 39 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill) are in keeping with the equality-based arguments for amendments to the law. Islam also forbids religious abuse. I speak as a British Muslim when I say that we are pleased that the matter of religion has been taken out of the anti-terrorism Bill, which, undoubtedly, would otherwise have been viewed negatively.
Although there have been some apprehensions that, rather than being protected, British Muslims will be further persecuted under the new Bill, I feel that it is beneficial to us and other religious groups to be covered by the law against unfair discrimination. There have also been concerns that freedom of speech will be stifled, but the Religious Offences Bill refers to acts of hatred, not comedy and religious debate. This Bill will now protect all groups, unlike the previous blasphemy laws. It is also in keeping with respecting unity, diversity and equality.
In conclusion, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who has suggested that the Bill could go to a Select Committee for further examination. I strongly support him in that aim. I wholly support the introduction of the Bill, and look forward to discussing the new religious discrimination Bill.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not wish the Bill to reach the statute book and nor do I accept that there is any reason why it should do so. This can obviously become an emotive subject and I shall not follow the line of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, because I am anxious to remove that element from the whole discussion.
The Bill pre-empts extensive consultation between the three monotheist bodies and other religious bodies in England, Wales and Scotland on the issues covered in Clauses 1 and 2. That pre-emption would render wholly inappropriate the setting up of the suggested Select Committee, if the Bill were to be given a Second Reading—which, by convention, I suppose that it has to be given. It is essential that, in ecclesiastical matters, some sort of consensus should be sought and, if possible, achieved by compromise before the Bill could ever be referred to a Select Committee of this House, as is understood to be the intention—subject, of course, to the approval of this House.
I speak only for myself, but I do so in the light of a mass of unsolicited correspondence, to which I referred during the passage of the recent Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Bill. One ought not to tinker with the law in the area of religion without having at least sought consensus, which I had understood to be the sense of this House on the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Bill. I have said that, but for convention, I would oppose Second Reading.

321
On Clause 1, if there were a consensus between the religious bodies, after consultation, to accept the recommendations of the Law Commission, so be it, but it is suggested that Section 2 of the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860 should be retained as redrafted as constituting a religiously aggravated circumstance to be added to the offences by amendment to Section 29 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
As for Clause 2, I am not concerned with importing emergency legislation from the Province as a precedent for legislation in this country or in Scotland or Wales. Clause 2 is a replica of the provision in the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Bill that your Lordships rejected by a massive majority on two occasions. It is not a new provision, which we understood that the Government might wish to introduce in the light of extensive consultation. Your Lordships may well think that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill in any event. Clauses 1 and 2 raise totally disparate, distinct and separate issues, which are in no way related. Even if Clause 1 were to commend itself, that could never justify the retention of Clause 2—or vice versa. There is a rumour of a trade-off on both clauses, so that a semblance of unity might be achieved and the aspiration of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, could be fulfilled and the whole matter could be sent to a Select Committee. If that rumour is true, I hope that your Lordships will have none of it.
In all events, if Clause 2 were not to stand part, the Title and Clause 3 would require amendment and it would be wholly unacceptable to foreclose on a Committee stage on the Floor of this House. I stand by that to the end of my speech.
I do not understand why the opinion of the House, expressed only six weeks ago by the composite wisdom of your Lordships on two substantial Divisions should not be respected by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and why the issue should be so soon revisited.
If the essence of the problem is that identified in the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, whom I see in his place, on 15th October when the Statement was made—that religious hatred is used as a cover for racial hatred—so be it. Since then, however, Section 39 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 has made provision for religiously aggravated offences which includes relevant safeguards, renders Clause 2 otiose and disposes of the argument in favour of the new offence of incitement to religious hatred. Under Section 40 of the Act, the maximum sentence for such offences is increased to seven years.
As for the argument in favour of the new offence in Clause 2, on 15th November, the Home Affairs Committee found no evidence to support it. It found problems of compatibility with the ECHR concerning freedom of thought and speech on religious matters; the objections of all three monotheistic religions and other religious bodies; and the "cross breed" objections of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that racial hatred is not a matter of opinion protected by free
322
speech. Today, the noble Earl has confirmed that that objection does not extend to Sections 39 and 40 which provide for an increased sentence on conviction for the relevant offences—public order, assaults, criminal damage, harassment and so forth.
If the law as it stands were to be enforced—an issue raised on 21st November by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford—it is a wholly satisfactory regime. Clause 2 is not only pre-emptive of due consultation but wholly inapposite. Indeed, it would work much unintended mischief.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he agrees that there is religious discrimination against Muslims? The British National Party has been publishing leaflets and inciting hatred against the Muslim community but there is no legislation to protect that community. How does the noble Lord suggest the authorities should deal with those matters?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, although I have an understanding and sympathy for what he says, I decline to enter into that type of discussion tonight. I am of the opinion that if the present law were enforced as amended by Sections 39 and 40 of the 2001 Act—the noble Lord shakes his head, but I could shake my head at him; I am only answering his question to the best of my ability—it would be a wholly appropriate and effective safeguard. That is my opinion and my answer in amity.
9.38 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords. I should like to take the Bill in three bites. The first is what it proposes: revival of the Government's proposals for dealing with religious hatred. The second is what it seeks to abolish: the offence of blasphemy. The third is a variety of provisions relating to disorder in churches and churchyards.
First of all, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, it is quite clear that the issue of incitement to religious hatred will not go away. I believe that the Government were right to seek to legislate in this area, but whether they were right to try to bring in such provisions under the banner of a Bill against terrorism is another matter.
Much of the opposition to this proposal expressed fear for the curtailment of free speech. But what is at issue is not the right of free speech; no religion ought to have anything to fear from fair scrutiny and honest debate. No, what is at issue is the abuse of free speech to incite fear, prejudice, contempt and even violence.
The shameful history of European anti-Semitism makes the point. Jews have been abused and vilified not only for their alleged racial characteristics but also for their real or alleged religious practices, all the way from circumcision and dietary rules to stories of baby eating.

323
As we have already heard, Jews, like Sikhs, are now protected by anti-racist legislation because in their cases the boundaries of race and religion are held to coincide. Not so Christians, Muslims or Buddhists. For the sake of clarity, as I think I may have been misunderstood, I shall repeat some of the things I said on, I believe, 15th October. The boundaries of Christianity and Islam do not coincide with ethnicity. These are religious communities which in principle transcend all ethnic divisions. Nevertheless—and this is the point in the situation in which we find ourselves—in particular historical and social circumstances these religions have become associated in the popular mind with particular ethnic groups.
Islam is not an inherently Asian religion. In my city of Birmingham there are plenty of white Muslims, just as there are plenty of Asian Christians. Nevertheless, Islam is generally perceived in this country as an Asian religion. Consequently, attacks on Islam are used as a cover for incitement to hatred and even violence against people of Asian origin. Islamophobia is an issue and it is not dealt with by current anti-racist legislation.
Leaflets circulated by the British National Party in the West Midlands illustrate the point when they present themselves as defenders—the only defenders, they say—of Christianity and urge parents to withdraw their children from religious education on the grounds that it is now a vehicle for the Islamification of so-called Christian Britain. Of course, for "Christian" read "white" and for "Islamic" read -Asian".
Of course, if there are to be criminal sanctions against religious hatred, there must be measures to prevent their abuse, such as keeping authorisation for prosecution in the hands of the Attorney-General. The proper exercise of free speech must be protected, but not its abuse, which brings us to blasphemy. The present state of the law, which offers protection to one religion only, is plainly indefensible. The only argument lies between those who believe that all faiths should be given protection against hatred and abuse and those who believe that all faiths are fair targets for anything.
The view of the bishops of the Church of England—and it is widely shared—is that if there is satisfactory and plainly effective legislation against religious hatred, the law against blasphemy can go. But before leaving blasphemy, it is worth noticing that what we are now talking about is the protection of the rights of groups and communities and not only of individuals. That is important in view of some of the arguments that were advanced when your Lordships discussed the human rights legislation a few years ago.
Finally, this Bill seeks to abolish various offences relating to disturbances in churches and churchyards. Here, in place of outright abolition, the Church would want to follow the Law Commission in extending protection from Christianity to all faiths by penalising riotous, violent or indecent behaviour in any place of religious worship.
324
I speak from pastoral experience when I say that such protection is sometimes needed. I find myself wondering on this point whether the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has consulted the police. I believe that they would agree with my point. This part of the Bill, whatever my comments on the rest of it. certainly needs more thought.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the substance of this Bill, tabled, as it now is, independent of the matters that were raised in the anti-terrorism, crime and security legislation. I also welcome this opportunity to deliver my maiden speech.
Those several sources of advice on the protocol of maiden speeches whom I consulted stressed two points. The first is that a maiden speech should be delicately short. The second is that the speech should not be controversial. I have at moments given way to the thought that perhaps I have chosen the wrong Bill if I am to meet the second of those criteria; that is, of being non-controversial. Two means. however, have occurred to me of avoiding unnecessary controversy in such sensitive—properly sensitive—matters.
The first might find me accused of mauvaise foi bad faith—for it appeals to the example of Shakespeare's Mark Antony, who came, as he reiterated,
"to bury Caesar, not to praise him".
That would not only imply an element of legalistic literalism but it would set a dangerous precedent. I shall therefore resist the temptation to refer to those who either propose or oppose the Bill as. "all, all honourable men". However, I am sure, as Mark Antony was not, that they are all, all honourable men—and, indeed, women.
This short literary excursion may seem a self-indulgence, but it is not. It takes me to my first point. The difficulty that the clever use of words by a polemicist, an orator, a preacher and, heaven help us, these days even perhaps a religious spin doctor might pose for those who would seek clear legislation in such essentially disputable areas as religious belief a.nd religious offence is a real difficulty and must be tackled in any adequate legislation.
There is an alternative basis, of course, for speaking non-controversially in such sensitive contexts. That is perhaps to be found in a previous world that I inhabited. I was, in fact, a professor of the philosophy of religion at King's College, London, and now, fitfully—as other duties allow—at the University of Edinburgh. That is to say, I speak as one who seeks to understand, through scholarly intersections of philosophy and religious belief, what these issues are and how they affect the tenor and course of our society.
Yet even there immediately one courts the risk of controversy. It was David Hume, who suffered in his own life the offences of religious discrimination and hatred—indeed, denied, as he was, a professorship of philosophy because of his alleged atheism and actual

325
scepticism—who reminded philosophers of the change of terrain when one moves from philosophy to religion. He wrote:
"Whereas the mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous".
So, too, one might add, are any potential mistakes in legislation about religion.
However, a background in the philosophy of religion, as well as an early but growing respect for the conventions of this House, reassure me that there are merits in speaking on this topic not just as a CrossBencher defined in party political terms but as a CrossBencher in fact in matters of religious belief and practice.
I restrict myself to two specific points. In the first place, I welcome particularly Clause 1. Subsections (1)(a), (2)(a) and (2)(b) of the Bill are particularly welcome. The classification of blasphemy as a crime belonged to another age.
In the second, and final, place, I further ask your Lordships to reflect a little more widely upon the context from which Clause 2 of the Bill comes before us. The context is one of ignorance that promotes fear and suspicion of the religious beliefs and practices of others. I am not wholly persuaded of the truth of the adage that:
"To understand all is to forgive all—,
but I have no doubt that in matters of religious belief and religious sensitivities, knowledge and understanding are a precondition of tolerance and toleration.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, stressed the appalling level of religious discrimination and harassment in our society. This is clearly a matter that requires serious attention. I suggest that one way in which to give it serious attention is to consider what I believe is an obvious point: the question of what means we provide for our people to understand these issues. What is the pattern and form of religious education which we operate in our schools and more widely in our society?
My suggestion is that we do not yet have an adequate form of religious education—adequate, that is, for the character of the diversity of the society in which we live. If that is the case, surely one way in which to tackle such appalling discrimination—it is there; I have no doubt about that—is to think once more about the groundwork and fundamental principles of the kind of education which we provide in our schools.
Therefore, if, in fact, we proceed further with the discussion of these matters—I hope that we do—I hope that in due course that will include the opportunity here and elsewhere for a reassessment of the place and nature of religious education both generally in our society and specifically in our schools. If one considers that such a reassessment might be too controversial, and if one considers that such a search for knowledge and understanding might be too difficult or even too expensive, then the only alternative, as one of my fellow vice-chancellors from
326
the USA once put it, is to "try ignorance". Surely not. It is undoubtedly the presence of that very ignorance which has led to the need properly to debate such a Bill this evening.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is genuinely a great pleasure and a privilege for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, on his maiden speech. He could have chosen any of a variety of topics on which to speak. He could have chosen education, care for the elderly, on which he wrote a masterly report, philosophy or religion. I am glad to say that he chose this Bill and managed to make a very balanced and non-controversial speech on the subject.
The noble Lord brings to us great distinction as an educationist, philosopher and social thinker. Indeed, he has the incredible distinction of having once been my boss—it is not given to many people to be that—since when he has fallen on hard times. But I welcome him here on behalf of us all and I hope that we shall hear much more of him in the years to come.
It will come as no surprise that I do not like the Bill. There is a famous story of a couple who went to see the film "Ben-Hur". One asked, "What did you think of it?", to which the other replied, "I liked Ben; I hated Hur". I like Clause 1 but hate Clause 2. That is my summary judgment of the Bill.
However, seriously speaking, I believe that there are a number of problems with the Bill. I have a deep and abiding respect for the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who introduced it. He has made an unmatched contribution in defence of human rights, and I entirely understand why he is doing what he is doing. But I shall, to the last breath in my body, oppose any legislation of this kind because I believe that it is misconceived and, if passed, will do untold harm to the people whom it seeks to protect.
I start by arguing my case. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham made my case for me. He said, and I agree, that when the British National Party writes its pamphlets against Muslims. that has nothing to do with religion. It is not indulging in some obscure theological debate about the Koran, the prophet or the Sharia. It is a racist attack on Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Indian Muslims. It has not attacked black Muslims, although it could have done. It has not attacked white Muslims. It is attacking south-Asian Muslims because they are south Asians. If the BNP saw a south Asian walking along the streets of Bradford, Burnley, or wherever, it may not even care that he is not a Muslim but a Hindu. The issue is not one of religion, but religion has been raised because of all the Islamophobia taking place.
I am an atheist, but I was born a Hindu, so I have to ply my goods. I believe that in the debates on religion there is too narrow an emphasis on the three monotheistic religions. We need to be careful or we shall upset a lot of people in the world—one billion at least—who are not children of Abraham. As I have said before, the three great monotheistic religions of the Middle East have a history of almost 2,000 years of

327
hating each other. That is what neighbours do; they hate each other. I would even say that religious hatred has been preached inside churches, temples and mosques. In the past 2,000 years religious hatred has been preached inside religious temples. That happens today in India among Hindus. Hatred of Muslims is being preached in Hindu temples. It is an absolute recipe for religious hatred to belong to another religion.
I do not take seriously the professions of religion that they all preach tolerance and believe in peace. I shall not go down that road, or I shall never stop. The problem is not one of religious hatred. Both the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the right reverend Prelate gave the example of Northern Ireland. How very nice. When I see children being spat upon as they go to primary school and being fire-bombed, do I say, "That cannot possibly happen in Northern Ireland because it has legislation against religious hatred"? What do we think is going on there? It has nothing to do with religion.
People identify certain groups by religion, but there is communal hatred. In India and Pakistan there used to be what was called "communalism". This is communalism; that is, hating communities. People are labelled by religion. Even though they look exactly like you, behave like you, eat like you and drink like you, you hate them because you label them as belonging to another community.
I have said before that if we were really serious about this question, we should re-examine the racial hatred legislation and see whether we cannot extend the definition of race to cover these kinds of acts. There is a question of religious discrimination with which we should deal, but that is not an issue in this legislation. Therefore, I shall not deal with it tonight. I shall make one comment, which I have made before. My race is not my choice; my religion is my choice. Therefore, one cannot draw a parallel between race and religion.
People say that Jews and Sikhs have an identity between race and religion. I do not believe that that is entirely true. Carl Marx's father converted to Christianity. However, everyone still denounced Marx as a Jew. If one wants to hate the Jews, one does not care what religion they are; one still hates them.
Some prominent Christians become Jews when they marry. For example, Miss Taylor became a Jew when she married her second husband, Mike Todd. She has never been hated as a Jew. Why? There is a real distinction here. If I was a Sikh and I shaved off my beard and cut my hair no one would know what religion I was. So there are funny things going on here. I think that people hate Jews because they hate Jews as a race. Theological issues which used to be part of Christians hatred of Jews are now, thank heaven, almost gone.
We are dealing here with communal or racial hatred. It is hatred of—let us call them—national groups which live in certain areas. We are making a great mistake for entirely honourable reasons by putting a religious tag on this issue. Religion has caused enough trouble for the last 2000 years; let it not cause any more.
10.1 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I share a great deall of sympathy for what the noble Lord. Lord Desai, has just said although I suspect that my logic would lead me back to the Bill in order to tackle the problems with which he sought to deal. I cannot, in the limited time that I have spent looking at the matter, see any other practical way of tackling the kind of problems that we all agree exist. Although I entirely agree with the noble Lord that these are not problems that, by and large, at the moment spring from religion in this country, they are expressed in that way. Perhaps tackling the expression is the practical and sensible way forward.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has brought the Bill back to us. Like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I am pleased to be tackling this matter again. I was delighted that we did not have to tackle it in the rush to pass the Anti-terrorism. Crime and Security Bill because a great deal of care and thought is needed to get the provision right. There are activities which should be caught under this Bill, and there are activities that it might threaten to catch which should definitely not be caught.
It is difficult to define a religion. We do not have any definition of religion in this Bill or, so far as I am aware, in our law. Once one starts with the great religions, certainly with Christianity and Islam, one is not dealing with a community but with a whole scatter of communities which have spent some parts of their history burning each other (and doubtless doing other dreadful things to each other) because of minor differences in their interpretation of the same gospels. One is not dealing with one friendly community, but with a whole collection of little communities; one of which is a community that we have just been to war with—the Taliban. It seems to me that one can reasonably get to the point of hating the Taliban—and it is a group which would define itself in relation to religion. Therefore, if it was a circumstance that was happening within this country one could find oneself, without a great deal of care, caught by legislation such as this.
We could also find mothers being caught under the provisions whose children had been kidnapped by quasi-Christian sects. That happens in this country and it causes a great deal of pain. There are a number of what one might call quasi-religions which are extremely rich and which are fierce in prosecuting their enemies. One must be careful not to hand a loaded weapon to them.
We must also be careful about the extension of the concept of religion to other things. There is much more observance of fox hunting and keen enjoyment of it and participation in it among those who go in for it than there is of Christianity among many people who would call themselves Christian. Communism might qualify as a religion, if it did not deny the fact so earnestly. It is difficult to know where the boundaries of religion will be drawn.
As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, religion and race are different. Religion is not always a choice; one is born into a community, as well as a race, and religion

329
can be part of that. I was born a Christian, although I am no longer a Christian. Christianity has doubtless made its mark on me, and I identify with much of the belief system with which I grew up. I would be identified as a Christian by someone who wanted to put me into a religious slot.
It is reasonable, in some circumstances, to hate things religious, although I cannot think of a circumstance in which it would be reasonable to hate someone because of their race. If Catholics were still burning us, and we were still burning Catholics, it would be quite reasonable for us to hate the other side. It does not strike me that, under those circumstances, we should seek to stop someone hating someone who is doing something hateful. Religion, sadly, often results in people—or groups within a religion—doing hateful things.
I should like to see the Bill go into Committee. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that that would be a bad way of dealing with it. I do not want to see a stitch-up between the major religions, with them deciding what the law should be and presenting us with a fait accompli. I want us, the non-religious, who are equally concerned about the effect of religion on our society, to participate.
Referring the Bill to a Committee of the House would mean that it would run into the sands, because it would not get time to pass by the end of the Session. However, the Bill would be thoroughly debated. It would probably come back to the House for a Report stage and then die. That would mean that it was open to the community at large to decide whether we could bring back an amended Bill and run it through its proper course in the new Session. That would be a sensible way of doing things and could be a constructive way of raising the issues in a calm, collected and open atmosphere and of having them properly debated by all sides without the debate being captured by any particular section of society.
In changing the Bill, we must go for common sense in constructing the defences that would be available to a citizen. We must rely on the common sense of judges and produce something that is reasonably flexible. I should like to see a defence against the charge of religious hatred on the grounds that the action taken by the accused was reasonable in all the circumstances. That might be worth considering. We might have to define the breadth of that, to make it clear that free speech was defended and that someone would be able to challenge the tenets or practice of a religion as long as that is what they were doing and what they had intended to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out that criticism of a religion can tend to stir up hatred. That is what animal rights activists do. They stir up hatred against Islam and Judaism by pointing to the method that they use for killing animals. I should not wish to see such people—much though I disagree with them—prevented from making that criticism. They are not doing it to stir up hatred against individuals in that group; they are trying to deal with a particular
330
religious practice that they find extremely difficult because of their views about how we should treat animals. I do not want that to be caught by the Bill.
I want there to be time for the Bill to be tested against all the potential things that ought to be able to be done, to make sure that it does not catch them. I want to make sure that the evils that we are trying to catch really would be caught by the Bill and, in particular—to cover the points made by my noble friend—would not already be better caught by something else. We should focus this Bill on things which need to be caught and we should catch them in the right way.
I wish the Bill good fortune, as long as—and I do mean "as long as"—it does not become law during this Session, but we have a great deal of time in which to debate it.
10.10 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I shall be very brief. We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for sticking to his purpose with this the second of his Bills on the subject. I echo his tribute to the excellent Library note.
In warmly supporting the Bill, I shall not propound the arguments I have prepared because most of them have been made already with great eloquence, and it is rather late for the others. They have been made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, my noble friend Lord Ahmed and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. But, following the subtle and erudite maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, I shall add two authorities for my opinion.
One is the third century Indian king, Ashoka, who said that the beliefs of other people all deserve reverence; and the other is John Stuart Mill, who included within religious freedom the tolerance of scepticism and atheism, as does the European Convention on Human Rights.
As for blasphemy, I read last week in the History of Blasphemy just published, by Alain Cabantous, that the Talmud was publicly burned as blasphemous and that the publisher of Tom Paine's The Age of Reason was punished as a blasphemer. That is not an edifying history, and one better curtailed.
Finally, I strongly endorse the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the reasons he gave and because of the various concerns expressed by noble Lords, and because of the innovatory nature of Clause 2, with its implied acknowledgement of a post-secular age, which those of us who care for the enlightenment may regret, but I think that that is the case.
Not least, a Select Committee could reflect on the opinion of the United Nations Human Rights Committee that,
"the UK should extend its own criminal legislation to cover offences motivated by religious hatred".

331
The UK is a signatory to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and has bound itself to uphold both the convention's freedoms and its protections. But we need now to pay more detailed attention to the implementation of our international obligations in respect of hatred on the grounds of religion or belief. On that basis, I warmly commend the Bill.
10.13 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I should like to say how much I enjoyed the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. The right reverend Prelate was a long-standing member of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, NACRO, and has a record on equality and human rights second to none. That was clearly demonstrated in his speech tonight. I thank him for that.
May I also say how delighted I was to listen to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. His speech was a matter of considerable substance because I believe that he has highlighted education as one of the elements that we need to consider as a part of this equation.
I support the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Avebury because its purpose is clear. It seeks to abolish the common law offence of blasphemy and certain other offences, and to create an offence of religious hatred. I have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, but this is not a recent phenomenon. When I came to this country in 1956 and settled in Brighton, the local National Front and British National Party formed the Sussex Racial Preservation Society in case I contaminated the local culture.
The recent trend of the National Front and British National Party is not to behave on the basis of racial element but to exploit Hindus and Sikhs against Muslims. I worked for the Commission for Racial Equality for more than 28 years. Whenever racial discrimination or religious hatred against Muslims came before the CRE, it was powerless to do anything.
If the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and I were to walk down the street together, I do not believe that any National Front member would be able to distinguish which one of us was a Hindu or a Muslim. Both of us would be one to him. To that extent, the racial argument is valid but it goes beyond that—and it is time that we were a step ahead.
The record in respect of incitement to racial hatred has been poor. The situation in relation to religious hatred is even worse—as I found during my work at the CRE. One must feel concern about the security of all communities in Britain. The Minister might be tempted to ask why we did not support a similar measure during the passage of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. That measure was not the right place for such a provision. The events of 11 th September were not relevant. A distinction had to be made between anti-terrorism measures that could be
332
justified as necessary in an emergency situation and those that have wider implications and should be given greater consideration by Parliament.
Unlike the measures that the Government had in mind, my noble friend Lord Avebury goes one step further. The Bill is designed to abolish the common law offence of blasphemy that was not covered by the anti-terrorism legislation. The view is widely held that the current law is unfair and protects only members of the Christian faith. The Government certainly face a dilemma. There are people who believe that the common law offence of blasphemy should be abolished. Equally, there are people who advocate a more stringent approach. It does not matter which view one supports. It is clear that the offence as it stands gives better support to one religion while others are left to fend for themselves. Any law that discriminates in its application is a bad law and goes against the Government's stance on equality legislation.
My noble friend's solution is worthy of consideration. The Bill will amend Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 to include racial or religious hatred. In addition, it will introduce a common, universal definition that treats all religions equally. Section 17 will be amended so that religious hatred means
"hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious beliefgggg".
Thus it will be possible to tackle incitement resulting from words or behaviour; the display, publishing or distribution of written material; public performances or plays; distributing, showing or playing a recording; broadcasting or the possession of racially inflammatory material.
I note the concern expressed by the Bishop of London's working group on offences against religion and public worship as early as 1987. At that time, the right reverend Prelate said:
"It is our strong opinion that to withdraw the protection of the law altogether from grossly abusive attacks, made with the purpose of outraging religious feelings, would be widely taken to express the view that religious belief was no longer a matter deserving the protection of the law".
Section 17A of the Public Order Act 1986 as proposed by my noble friend is clearly designed to ensure that all religious beliefs are adequately protected. I trust that the Bishops' Bench will welcome this provision.
The working party of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London expressed a clear view about other religions. It stated:
"We feel that the requirements of natural justice entail that this protection should not be limited to Christians. Other members of the British Society who sincerely hold religious beliefs are members of the same society as Christians and so should enjoy similar protection under the state law. A new offence which seeks to protect adherents of all religions, would he a cohesive and supportive element in the plural society of the country today'".
That is the sentiment described by the right reverend Prelate. It is right, therefore, that we should ensure that there is a process of equality in such legislation.

333
The creation of an offence of religious hatred is very important. There have been a number of research reports—identified by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed—published by the Home Office, which have examined religious discrimination. Much emphasis has been placed on this issue because "racially aggravated" offences are defined by race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins. The definition does not include religious groups, although some religious groups may be covered by analogy with court decisions made under the Race Relations Act 1976.
The House of Lords held that Sikhs constitute an ethnic group, whereas Muslims do not. I do not think that this is the place to rehearse the arguments about ethnicity, but suffice to say that racial hatred can be dealt with under the present race relations legislation on incitement to racial hatred, but there is no equivalent protection afforded to matters of religious hatred.
Even in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 there is an ambiguity about this matter. There may be an offence which may appear to be motivated by religious hostility but which may also contain a racist element. The test of what amounts to "racially aggravated" requires that the racial hostility is "wholly or partly" a motivating factor. Even if there is a religious hostility, provided that part of the hostility is racist and provided that part of the motivation was based on racial motivation or hostility, then, and only then, is the offence covered under the Act. In other words, if a racial element cannot be established, the case for religious hostility fails.
What is now required is a detailed consideration about the appropriateness of an offence of religious hatred.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. With respect, I do not think the noble Lord is quite right. Under Sections 39 and 40, the religious motivation alone would carry. Therefore there is in existence, under existing law, thanks to the anti-terrorism Act, a mechanism to protect what he wishes to protect.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, my understanding of what is provided for is that if there is an element of religious hostility in matters of racial hostility, that can be taken by the courts to be an aggravating factor in determining sentence. That is what I understand.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is either racial or religious. Therefore one or the other will serve to protect.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, at this late hour I do not wish to argue about the legal knowledge of the noble Lord. Certainly, if I am wrong, I shall correct my record in Hansard at the earliest opportunity.
There is a need for independent evidence to be collected. There is a further need to examine appropriate legal remedies in matters of religious
334
discrimination. We need to allay the fears of those who are concerned about freedom of speech. Will the Minister consider asking the Select Committee to consider these issues—a suggestion was made by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Ahmed, and a number of other speakers—so that, in due course, we can prepare a framework of legislation which may go a long way towards establishing equality and removing the sense of insecurity that is prevalent among many minorities in this country. That is the right way ahead. I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to this request.
10.25 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House will undoubtedly be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing the Bill. I am bound to say that I believe he is being a trifle hasty and opportunistic in doing so. However, that is consistent with the noble Lord's record in this field and we should not be surprised. I could have wished for a longer interval between the passing of the anti-terrorism Bill at the end of November last year and any reconsideration of this matter. I believe that considerable thought is necessary before we make progress.
It is a particular pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. I have never met a professor of religious philosophy before, but I cannot think of a more appropriate occasion for someone who includes that in his curriculum vitae to make his mark in a maiden speech. I look forward to hearing many more contributions from the noble Lord.
We need to be clear about one point arising out of remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. The Bill does not make religious hatred an offence. If the Bill progresses, it will deal with various matters which might create, cause or incite religious hatred. Religious hatred itself is not an offence.
My second point is possibly a more difficult one. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and for the work that he does for and on behalf of his community. I have every sympathy in respect of the problems created for the people in that community by the present national and international situation. Equally, I respect the responsible approach of all moderate people within the Muslim community in this country. However, we must consider this matter from a wider perspective than the problems currently faced by one single community. I hope that the noble Lord will not mind my introducing that slightly wider perspective.
This is not a straightforward issue. My noble friend Lord Lucas raised the question of what is a religion, or indeed a religious community. I begin by dissecting Christianity. There is an obvious division into Catholics and Anglicans. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate will forgive me for making a distinction between Anglicans and the Church of England. Those in north America would not consider themselves as having anything to do with the Church of England, although they are of the same Church in many ways.

335
We have the Reform Church, Baptists, the Congregational Church, and there are sects. In my part of the world there is a group called The Peculiar People, who are very strange indeed. They can cause quite a lot of friction in the community. It becomes quite difficult when we come to Mormons and even more difficult when we talk about the Church of Scientology, which may or may not be a church or religion at all. These matters are important because definitions can be used in other contexts or subventions from government. We need to be extremely careful. All these matters can cause difficulty.
It is interesting to note that there were discussions between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved power in Scotland prior to the passage of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. That Act was clearly intended to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. The only reservation that the Scots had about the Bill was that on no account should the religious clauses apply in Scotland. It has a well-known reputation for holding strong and divisive religious views. The Scots clearly thought that the matter was far too contentious for we Sassenachs to be allowed to pass an opinion. I issue another note of caution.
I have reached the conclusion that the Bill, although well-intentioned, is premature. I should prefer that it were not here now, but that is not because I am opposed to the principle. It may be that the Bill in the wisdom of the House will be sent to a Select Committee and, if it finally comes back to us, that may be an appropriate way forward. My view is that progress of this Bill in this form at this time would not he wise. With the greatest deference to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, whom I greatly respect, I do not think that the matter has had sufficient thought. I am not certain that we have yet arrived at a sufficient degree of agreement for us to be confident that the Bill will succeed in the purpose for which it is intended.
The issues are wider than the simple and straightforward one that has been caused by the current national and international situation vis-a-vis aspects of the Muslim community. The situation is tragic but we must be extremely careful about what we do because of the wider implications and the possibility of the measure having an adverse affect on other aspects of life.
10.35 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, rarely can there have been such a fascinating debate on a Bill, brought forward in this way by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. From the Government's perspective, it is worth echoing our gratitude and thanks to the noble Lord for bringing forward the Bill as quickly as he has in the time since we discussed the anti-terrorism legislation before Christmas. I do not share the view expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that this is opportunistic, except to say that it is opportune. It is right for us to continue to have such important
336
debates. It would be fair to reflect that this is one of the issues left over from the early debates on antiterrorism to which we are right to return at this stage.
Before I turn to the content of what was both an interesting and fascinating debate, I shoulcl like to record my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, on his contribution to our debate this evening. I guess that only a professor of religious philosophy, or of the philosophy of religion, could declare himself a "religious Cross-Bencher". That is a fine expression, if I may say so. In his short and sweet contribution, the noble Lord was right to remind us that it is easy to make mistakes in legislation, and that we should perhaps seek to reflect more widely on the debate when moving forward and trying to consider such issues. I say that in the full knowledge that it is not too long ago that we sought to put these very clauses into an important piece of legislation.
The issue that the noble Lord touched upon with great perception was that relating to religious education in our schools. I am now fast approaching my mid-point in the century of life and think back to the time when I attended school and was taught religious instruction. I can now reflect that it is not that way any more; indeed, great progress has been made. My two children are now at secondary school. What I appreciate most when I view their homework is the fact that Mr Hickman, their teacher in these matters, provides contexts and presents them with a rational way of looking at the world's religions. That is the way to tackle the very core of the problem, which is, essentially, ignorance. We need to foster and further understanding of these matters. However, at the same time, I argue that we also need to counter discrimination, bias, hatred and incitement to hatred, and best consider how we can do so.
My response in general to the Bill will he brief. I suppose I should pray for forgiveness in that respect. However, my response will be brief because, as noble Lords know, my noble friend Lord Rooker and my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General spent some time not so long ago facing opposition from all sides of the House on a clause in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill—a clause that now appears word for word in Clause 2 of the Bill before us.
Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to rehearse those arguments at this late hour. In any event, I am not sure that I could surpass the comprehensive and compelling explanation that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General gave on both 10th and 13th December last on the effect of the clause and the operation of the existing law on the incitement of racial hatred.
Despite the fact that the incitement to religious hatred clause was dropped from the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, we should not forget that that legislation importantly amended Part III of the Public Order Act in that it expanded racial hatred to groups outside Great Britain, and also increased the maximum penalty for the offence of inciting racial hatred from two to seven years' imprisonment.

337
I should point out that the Government remain convinced that those who deliberately seek to incite hatred against religious groups, to stir up hatred, and to set community against community, should commit a criminal offence. We remain convinced that the law should not create anomalies where some religious groups are protected because they fall under the courts' interpretation of racial groups, while others are not so protected. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and other speakers during the course of this evening's debate.
We remain convinced that an offence of incitement to religious hatred would not be abused, that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that freedom of speech is not unduly restricted and that criticism, debate or even jokes would not be outlawed or suppressed. That was our view in December and, your Lordships will not be surprised to learn, it is still our view.
On reflection, it was not clear exactly why your Lordships' House resisted the clause in the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Bill. Was it simply, as some suggested, because the clause was inappropriate for that Bill? Was it because the clause was technically flawed or was it because it was opposed in principle? The Hansard reports of our debates show a mish-mash of reasons, rationale and opposition. Perhaps this Bill will clarify where the House now stands. I certainly welcome the real debate that has been advanced this evening on the merits of the clause.
We put the incitement offence into the antiterrorism Bill because we recognised the weakness in law that could be exploited during tension that arose as a direct result of the events of 11th September. We did not support the amendment tabled to that Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker—which was identical to the provision in this Bill—to repeal the offence of blasphemy because we did not think that the repeal of blasphemy was an issue that had arisen as a direct result of the events of 11th September.
In December we had the rather odd scenario of some noble Lords opposite opposing the incitement clause because it was inappropriate for the anti-terrorism Bill but urging the Government in the same Bill to repeal blasphemy. That was a rich irony.
We have made it clear that we believed that it would be appropriate to have a constructive debate on the issue. That debate began with the anti-terrorism Bill and with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary's expression of his personal belief that the law on blasphemy should be repealed. I want it recorded that we very much welcome the opportunity that this Bill provides to continue that debate and we strongly welcome the suggestion that a Select Committee would be ideally placed to look at the issues in a considered and responsible way. I am happy to acknowledge that that view has been widely reflected in your Lordships' House this evening.
My noble friend Lord Rooker made it clear on 13th December—and he made no bones about it—that the Government have a full legislative timetable for this Session. We are committed to the proposals outlined
338
in the Queen's Speech and we are not prepared to sacrifice that timetable. However, the Government will not be the opposition to this Bill and we shall watch its progress with interest.
One or two other matters were raised during the debate that perhaps need to be cleared up. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General would issue guidance for the Bill. My noble and learned friend offered to issue guidance on how he would approach the exercise of his powers to consent to prosecutions if the Bill were to pass into law. If it would be useful, I am sure that my noble and learned friend would reconsider that position in issuing guidance, a draft of which he produced to aid your Lordships during the passage of the anti-terrorism Bill.
It is right to put on record our agreement with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham that there is a great need to look at the law relating to offences in churchyards. We accept that that is important. That is why we support the examination of the legislation in general terms by a Select Committee. That will undoubtedly be one of the issues that the Select Committee will want to turn its attention to.
I should like to correct one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. He is wrong to say that religiously aggravated offences were not amended earlier. I think that it is right to say that they were amended by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and that racially or religiously aggravated offences are now covered. It is an important point to remember.
I am heartened by the general support in your Lordships' House for the Bill's provisions. I am also heartened by what I sense are messages of support from all quarters within your Lordships' House for referring the matter to a Select Committee. Clearly that would be right. It would provide for mature reflection all the issues that have been very valuably raised both in this debate and in our debates in December. All your Lordships—from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to the noble Lord, Lord Desai—seem to agree at least on that point. Perhaps I should end my remarks there.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on introducing the Bill. Perhaps I should also commiserate with him given the amount of grief that it has caused others in the past. We certainly wish him well. Although the Bill has familiar clauses, he will undoubtedly discover that there is some equally familiar opposition to them.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he accept that, when I was dealing with the matter relating to the religious hatred provision, I was talking about the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and not the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001? He also mentioned the timetable. Does he think that progress will be made on the legislation in this Session?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I would not want to pre-empt discussions through the usual

339
channels on how the Select Committee might proceed. The noble Lord could perhaps discuss that issue with the noble Lord, Lord Roper—who is next to him on the Bench and could raise it with his colleagues. It is an important matter and requires some urgent thought; we thought that back in December and it continues to be our view. However, as many of your Lordships have said, it requires careful consideration. Of course I accept the noble Lord's explanation on the crime and disorder legislation.
10.47 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I shall not trespass on the patience of the House by reviewing the whole of this debate, in which so many distinguished noble Lords have spoken. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, was not the least of the speeches. It was something of a triumph to manage to be non-controversial on such a controversial subject. I think that his scholarly, wise and straightforward speech does not put him in the category of religious spin doctor—which was a nice coinage that we may be able to use on some future occasion.
I am most grateful to the Minister for his remarks on the Government's support, and particularly for his endorsement of the proposal that the Bill should be committed to a Select Committee. Several noble Lords on all sides of the House have supported that proposal. Even those who did not like the Bill's content said that
340
there should be much further discussion of this issue. In particular, although the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is not against the Bill's principle, he thinks that the proposals are far-reaching and demand great examination in case there are unanticipated side effects. As I understand it, the Select Committee would be the vehicle for doing just that.
In reply to the question asked by my noble friend, Lord Dholakia, on timing, I understand—and hope that I am at liberty to say this—that the Liaison Committee meets at the end of February. If it sees that your Lordships sense that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee, it will consider whether the means are available to set up a committee. As I understand it, two committees are reaching the end of their deliberations. There would therefore be a strong possibility that such a Select Committee could begin its work after Easter and report back to your Lordships before the end of this Session.
So that takes care of the anxieties that some noble Lords expressed that they did not wish the Bill to be passed into law in this Session. It would have no possibility of doing that, but it would perhaps form the basis of a much more carefully thought out Bill which would be brought back to your Lordships during the Session following this one.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Prison Officers' Pay and Conditions
  Prison Officers' Pay and Conditions
  Life Expectancy Rates
  Life Expectancy Rates
  Annuities Purchased by Occupational Pension Schemes
  Annuities Purchased by Occupational Pension Schemes
  Prisoner of War Status
  Prisoner of War Status
  Explosive Remnants of War
  Explosive Remnants of War
  Wrongly Taxed Army Pensioners
  Wrongly Taxed Army Pensioners
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  Employment Tribunals: Special Advisers
  Employment Tribunals: Special Advisers
  Higher Education Sector Staff: Racial Equality
  Higher Education Sector Staff: Racial Equality
  Refrigerators: Disposal
  Refrigerators: Disposal
  Countryside Stewardship Agreements
  Countryside Stewardship Agreements
  Ardoyne Street Protests
  Ardoyne Street Protests
  Mutual Respect Between Children of Different Faiths
  Mutual Respect Between Children of Different Faiths
  Treasury Solicitor's Department Annual Accounts
  Treasury Solicitor's Department Annual Accounts