Sitting of 31 January 2002

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order read for further consideration, as amended by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  To be further considered on Thursday 7 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Andrew George: What progress she has made in securing reform of the common fisheries policy. [29536]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government are committed to securing fundamental reform of the common fisheries policy with the aim of achieving an economically and environmentally sustainable CFP. The Government submitted a formal response last September to the European Commission's Green Paper on the forthcoming review of the CFP. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.
    Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. We have to be optimistic because, after all, even the Commission would be hard pressed to produce a policy more disastrous than the present one. The Minister and I share a commitment to achieving effective devolution in any future plan. In that spirit, will the Minister agree to replace the funds that his Department has taken from Cornwall's objective 1 programme to fund its decommissioning scheme? If he permits objective 1 funds to be used for decommissioning, will he allow Cornwall to run its own decommissioning scheme to ensure real economic benefits to Cornwall rather than to Spanish quota hoppers?
    Mr. Morley: That was an ingenious way of working in a local issue on the back of a national question. On the wider issue, the Commission's Green Paper on CFP
    408
    reform points in the right direction. It acknowledges the issues that our fishing industry wants to be included in that reform, and we will be pressing for that.
    On decommissioning and objective 1 funds in Cornwall, the £6 million fund available for decommissioning covers the cost of that decommissioning through objective 1 funding in Cornwall. About £1 million has been paid through objective 1 to cover decommissioning bids. Although it is true that one of those vessels is Spanish-owned, it is Cornish-registered, and has a record of landing in Cornwall. Therefore, whether we like it or not, the vessel is eligible under the rules.
    I am glad to say that the measures that we introduced on the economic link conditions have led to a fundamental change in the number of quota hoppers. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we inherited the situation, we did not create it.
    Shona McIsaac: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has seen the controversial debate on commercial fish stocks on the pages of the Grimsby Telegraph. That debates centres around seals and their effect on fishing stocks. What evidence does he have to show that seals are having a detrimental impact on commercial fish stocks? Does he have any opinion on the support expressed in some parts of Grimsby for culling seals to increase fish stocks?
    Mr. Morley: I am reluctant to get involved in a dispute between my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), not least because the headline in the Grimsby Telegraph was "Clubber versus Cuddler".
    The research carried out so far illustrates that the connection between seals and the food chain is complex. There is no clear evidence that seals seriously affect commercial fish stocks. We are, however, continuing to undertake further research to obtain a clear understanding of the role of seals within the marine ecosystem.
    Angus Robertson: In line with the first question on devolving a reformed common fisheries policy, can the Minister tell the House what weight the Government are giving to moves to establish zonal management as part of the reform of the CFP and what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on this subject?
    Mr. Morley: We keep in close touch with the Scottish Executive. Our position on the CFP is agreed between ourselves and the devolved Administrations, which have been involved at every stage of formulating policy.
    I support the concept of regional management and, indeed, zonal management. However, the concept of zonal management and enlargement is much more advanced within our country, as is discussion of how we can have regional, devolved fisheries management. Those arguments are new to many European countries, but we are engaging them to demonstrate that devolving the CFP is the best way forward in order to make it more flexible and responsive. We must recognise the enormous differences in fishing patterns in our own country, let alone the rest of Europe.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success at the December Fisheries Council

    409
    meeting in securing the quotas that our fishermen asked for, thus proving the value of good dialogue with the fishing industry. Does he agree that in the context of CFP reform and annual quota negotiations, we need a long-term view of where the UK fishing industry is going. Will he establish a Government industry taskforce, like the oil and gas industry taskforce, to work out where we want to be and how we can get there?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend puts forward an interesting idea and I know that he is in close contact with his local fishing industry. We have set up a high-level group to engage the fishing industry, from catching to processing, and it has valued the chance to have such a forum. There will be opportunities to develop that and I will give it some thought. The last Fisheries Council had a good outcome for the United Kingdom fishing industry because we stuck to the science and the industry accepted the scientific case. We obtained changes where the Commission went beyond science without justification and where the case for our bids was backed up by firm scientific evidence based on sustainability.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the proposed cod and hake recovery programme, which will presumably be applicable before the end of the year, override the current western waters effort limitation scheme as set out in its entirety in European Union regulation 650/95? Will the programme be directly applicable to all member states?
    Mr. Morley: The cod and hake recovery programmes will apply to all member states. The western waters effort management regime is in place, but the cod and hake programmes will take precedence. Indeed, the point of those programmes is conservation management. Western hake is in serious difficulty and we must take firm action. I am pleased that our industry's argument for the use of increased mesh sizes in the bay of Biscay has been accepted.

    Lindane
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will ban the use of the pesticide lindane. [29537]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The use of all lindane-based products is being phased out. No products may be sold or supplied in the United Kingdom and all products intended for agricultural use must be used up and disposed of by 20 June 2002.
    The approvals for the use of lindane wood preservatives have already been revoked and stock must be disposed of by November 2002. Some insecticides remain approved for storage and use until January 2003, but must then be disposed of by January 2004.
    Mrs. Campbell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She will be aware of the link that has been made between the use of lindane and the worrying increase in the incidence of breast cancer. Can she assure me that,
    410
    as well as being phased out for commercial, agricultural and horticultural use, lindane will be phased out for domestic use throughout Europe?
    Margaret Beckett: Obviously, what happens throughout Europe is a matter for other authorities, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep closely under review issues relating to lindane. I am aware that concern has been expressed about a link between its use and breast cancer, but my hon. Friend will also know that reservations have been expressed about the strength of that link and whether there is a risk. It remains the case, however, that lindane is on the way to being phased out for the uses listed by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. John Horam: As the Secretary of State will be aware, the steering group that oversees the voluntary package of measures designed to reduce the use of pesticides in farming in general is due to produce a report on its progress this week. Has she received such a report and, if so, will she publish it?
    Margaret Beckett: I have not yet received it. When it is received, the consideration for which the hon. Gentleman asks will be given. As he knows, as and when we can, we put as much information as possible in the public domain.

    Agricultural Shows
    Mr. Huw Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make a statement on the resumption of local agricultural shows. [29538]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): Agricultural shows are very important to rural communities and we hope that they will be able to go ahead later this year, but those shows will need to be licensed and meet strict biosecurity standards. We will announce the details as soon as possible.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the resumption of agricultural shows will be a great boost to the morale of the agricultural community and that such shows play an important role in the calendar of rural areas? Also, they bring together rural areas and towns. Will he join me in commending all those who work so hard to organise the annual Monmouth, Chepstow and Usk agricultural shows?
    Alun Michael: If I may stray back over the border for a minute, I am happy to pay tribute to all the work that goes on. As a Government, we want to put as much confidence as possible back into rural communities. That is why, earlier this week, we launched the campaign "Your countryside, you're welcome"—not as a Government campaign but as Government support for 50 organisations, ranging from farming to tourism and voluntary groups such as the Women's Institute. Like the people who put effort into organising the shows, such

    411
    partnerships make the countryside work and it is important that they are given every confidence for the future.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: In December, I asked the Minister a question on behalf of the Devon county show about the movement of livestock. He was good enough to say that he would try to give us a reply by the end of January. Today is the last day of January: has the right hon. Gentleman any news that I can pass on to the organisers of the Devon county show? Will they be able to show livestock this year?
    Alun Michael: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that we must be extremely sensitive and that we must not take risks, even at this point when it appears that foot and mouth disease has been eradicated. That is why great care is being taken in drawing up regulations on animal movements and associated activities. We need to be very careful. However, we hope, within a few days, to be able to respond in respect of the agricultural show about which he asked. On a previous occasion, I said that as I had visited the Devon show last year, when no animals were shown, I appreciated the show's importance in the hon. Gentleman's county. We hope very much that it will be able to go ahead without constraints this year. We shall get back to the hon. Gentleman very soon.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that agricultural shows are about much more than rural affairs and agriculture? They are a celebration of allotment holders, gardeners and a multitude of skills. Certainly, the Keighley agricultural show is a rare celebration of town and country combining in the various ways that I mentioned. It is a wonderful occasion for the people of Keighley and the surrounding area.
    Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes her point well. During the period of devastation by foot and mouth disease last year, many people in towns and cities came to appreciate what was put in danger as a result. It is thus extremely important that shows are supported by people in towns and cities as well as by those in the countryside. They help us to get over what is perceived in some places as a divide, but which should not be a divide.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: The Minister's comment that he would be able to announce a decision within the next few days will be warmly welcomed by all those involved in agricultural shows. As the House is aware, the cancellation of many of those shows cost a large number of people a great deal of money. As the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) said, there are effects not only on the farming community but on the wider rural community. About 300 agricultural shows are held every year and they attract 8 million visitors. Which shows do the right hon. Gentleman and his ministerial team intend to visit this year to demonstrate that they have full confidence in them and that they are welcome in the countryside?
    Alun Michael: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be equally enthusiastic. As I pointed out, I went to the Devon show last year. Wherever possible, we intend to visit shows, but their importance lies in what they do for town and country and for the individuals and
    412
    communities that they represent. We must give people the certainty to go ahead. They need to know which qualifications they should meet as soon as possible. We shall do that.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend visit the Royal Lancashire show—the oldest show in the country? If he does so, he might be able to ensure that there is an exhibition from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to put the case about what we are doing as a Government for rural society. I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that at those events country and town come together to show the best of rural affairs.
    Alun Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for demonstrating that DEFRA Ministers are popular on both sides of the House and that our visits are anticipated with enthusiasm. I assure him that whether or not we attend particular shows, we strongly support their importance to their local communities, as he described.
    Sue Doughty: Will the Minister bear in mind that some shows, such as the Surrey show, had to be cancelled last year? It is now a matter of urgency that the shows are able to put in place arrangements for their exhibitors, particularly those who bring animals along as part of their exhibit. There will be extra costs for cleaning and disinfection, and extra paperwork. Will the Minister be able to provide any assistance to the organisers of county shows, which provide such a wonderful showcase for our agricultural community?
    Alun Michael: The problems to which the hon. Lady refers are well understood. We have to be realistic; we have just been through the most devastating and unprecedented outbreak of animal disease and, while we all want to look to the future, we must ensure that we take no risks in so doing. I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that. As soon as possible, we want to give the shows certainty about what they need to do to be able to go ahead, and then to provide them with the enthusiasm and support that she and other hon. Members have suggested that they need. The shows need customers—the public—along with certainty as to what they need to do to attract them.

    Recycling Directive (Fridges)
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: If he will make a statement on the cost to (a) local councils and (b) individuals of implementing the EU Directive on the recycling of refrigerators and freezers. [29539]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I understand that the current charges levied by waste management companies for the storage and processing of fridges are in the range of £22 to £35 per unit, but that these are likely to fall once additional recycling facilities are operational. There should be no significant increase in costs to members of the public.
    Mr. Waterson: Will the Minister confirm that in the UK we dispose of some 3 million fridges a year, and that the fridge mountain is reckoned to be growing at a rate of 6,500 a day? Does he also accept that the funding

    413
    currently available to local authorities is woefully inadequate? Why should my local council have to raid other budgets to find the estimated £700,000 of new costs to deal with this problem in East Sussex?
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is approximately right: about 2.5 million—perhaps up to 3 million—fridges enter the waste stream each year, either for scrapping and decommissioning or for refurbishment and selling on to the domestic market. On funding, in December we announced a £6 million package to cover the cost to the end of the current fiscal year. We made it perfectly clear then that we are urgently considering what further funding might be necessary for the storage and processing of fridges in the next fiscal year. We believe that that is perfectly adequate. I would also point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in the current three-year spending period—spending review 2000—we have provided for an increase of £1.1 billion for environmental protection and cultural services, which includes waste management.
    Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister tell us when he expects the new capacity to be on stream to deal with the problem of removing the chlorofluorocarbons from the insulation material in fridges? The longer we have to wait for that, the more the costs will grow. Does he acknowledge that we are in this situation because the Government have been led by the nose by the EU directive rather than initiating their own programmes, and failed to recognise that the directive had a mandatory requirement, which they discovered only three weeks before it came into effect? Is not the same problem going to arise with the disposal of cars? Does the Minister not recognise that it is not the job of the EU to tell us what to do? [Interruption.] It is our job—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman finish.
    Malcolm Bruce: Hon. Members should contain themselves. What the EU is telling us to do is highly desirable, but we should not be waiting for it to pass directives. We should be implementing our own policy and shaping EU policy, rather than being the late followers-on behind initiatives that have been taken by other countries. Does the Minister admit that we have left it too late in this instance, and that that is why it is costing us so much?
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman's first point is perfectly sensible, and he is right to say that storage costs will continue to mount up until we can get the recycling plant in place. We have made every possible effort to obtain that technology, which is not currently available in this country, since we realised in June 2001 that it would be necessary in order to extract CFCs from insulating foam. A number of companies are investing in new plant; I am aware of up to a dozen which have expressed a strong interest, and I expect some of them to introduce it shortly. I certainly expect a number to be operational in the spring.
    On the second point, the hon. Gentleman should not get so excited about being led by EU directives, which are introduced by member states as a result of agreement between them all. In this case, an EC regulation drafted in 1998 required the extraction of CFCs from the coolant gases in fridge motors, but not from insulation foam.
    414
    However, just before the regulation came to the Environment Council in 1999, a change to article 15 caused uncertainty as to whether it applied to insulation foam.
    From that point, late in 1999, my officials made repeated requests to the Commission for formal clarification of that article, and I have a record of every such instance. We did not get a formal reply until June 2001. We were badly let down by the Commission, and that is not the way in which EU legislation should be passed. However, since we finally found out about insulation foam in June 2001, we have taken every step to resolve the matter as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: After speaking to local authorities, I can tell the Minister that it is clear that, due to Government incompetence, the extra costs are £30 to collect an old fridge, £30 to store it and at least £10 a fridge for bulk delivery to a recycler—that is, when they start to operate. For 3 million fridges a year, that is an unnecessary and unbudgeted cost of more than £200 million.
    On 14 January, the Minister said:
    "We are … taking the realistic view that if extra duties are imposed"—
    on local authorities—
    "they should be reasonably funded. That is the Government's policy."—[Official Report, 14 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 125.]
    Will the Minister confirm that central Government will pay that £200 million? When will local authorities get the bulk of that money?
    Mr. Meacher: First, as I thought I had made perfectly clear—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening—the incompetence is nothing to do with the UK Government; it is entirely the responsibility of the Commission. Secondly, I do not accept the figures that he produced. The cost will not be £200 million a year, or anything like it. I have made clear, and I repeat, that the reasonable costs of local authorities will be met by the £6 million available until the end of March, and we will make a further announcement in due course on what we believe are the reasonable costs that need to be met beyond that.
    The most appropriate way to distribute the £6 million to the local authorities is through the rate support grant mechanism, so they will receive it in their standard spending assessments, as they have generally made clear that they want grant aid paid in that way. Local authorities should have their reasonable costs covered; we are trying to minimise those costs by securing investment in new technology and new plant as soon as possible, and we have protected householders from any interruption in the buying and selling of fridges.

    Waste Recycling Targets
    Mr. John Baron: What financial support her Department is giving to local councils in order to help them meet their waste recycling targets. [29540]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Government are increasing funding for the environmental protection and cultural services block, which includes waste management. by £1.1 billion over

    415
    the SR 2000 period. There is also a ring-fenced fund of £140 million for local authority recycling and £220 million for the private finance initiative waste projects over the same period. Councils will also benefit from the £40 million that the Government have given to the waste resources action programme to overcome market barriers to re-use and the recycling of waste.
    Mr. Baron: I thank the Minister for that response. Given that Britain has just nine years to triple the amount of waste that it recycles, or face stiff EU penalties, and that organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Waste Watch have criticised the Government for the amount of assistance that they are giving to councils compared to what those organisations believe is required—something like £375 million a year—can the Minister now respond to Greenpeace's accusation that Labour is the party of incineration?
    Mr. Meacher: As I have already said, now and on many previous occasions, the amount of extra funding that has been provided to reach the statutory recycling targets for local authorities is generous by any standard. Let me make it clear that this is not just a question of resources. Although the recycling record of some local authorities is abysmal—at 3 or 5 per cent.—many local authorities are in the 15 to 20 per cent. bracket, and some are meeting targets of more than 25 per cent. and even up to 30 per cent.
    It is a matter of local political will and of providing the appropriate local facilities—notably, kerbside collection. I do not accept that the suggested funding is necessary.
    I find the hon. Gentleman's last point extraordinary. Under the previous Government, there were about 20 or 30 incinerators in this country; there are now 11. There are no plans for any further increase in incineration, provided that we can meet the EU landfill directive targets and achieve the statutory recycling targets. The Conservative party presided over a much larger number of incinerators than we are conceivably planning.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement of extra money for recycling will be warmly welcomed in the north-east, especially as local authorities in the county of Durham have had a very poor settlement this year, despite Government protestations to the contrary? But I warmly welcome his statement that this is not just a matter of money. Is he also aware that, in the Bishop Auckland area, all kinds of voluntary groups and, indeed, the business community are bubbling up with imaginative ideas for recycling, but the local authorities seem to be unable to respond supportively?
    Mr. Meacher: My right hon. Friend is right because, let me I repeat, this is not simply a question of resources—those resources must be adequate. We are sure that we are providing adequate resources. Three things are required: first, the targets to drive the programme; secondly, the money to finance it; and, thirdly, the all-important markets, to which he referred. There is no point in recycling large amounts of paper, glass, tin, aluminium or whatever unless it can be sold on. The purpose of setting up WRAP—the waste resources action programme, which is business-led and chaired by Vic Cocker, who is a water industry chief executive—is to
    416
    provide local authorities with good business sense, at arm's length from Government, on the markets for recycling. We think that that is very important. There are many innovative ideas, and there is no excuse for local authorities not to adopt them.
    Derek Conway: Is the Minister aware that Bexley council has a good recycling record? However, as well as encouraging such councils, is he aware that in places such as Welling the recycling site is located close to residential properties, so the local authority spends considerable amounts trying to protect residents from the inevitable noise generated in pursuit of what is unquestionably a very good cause? Recyling also has human consequences and local authorities need support from the Minister to deal with them.
    Mr. Meacher: Of course I accept that any industrial process, including an integrated waste management facility, involves a certain amount of noise and lorry journeys, and I am well aware that it can cause dust and nuisance. Obviously, this is matter for local authorities. In the past such facilities have been re-sited as a result of planning applications, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's local planning authority has taken account of the wider environmental impacts.
    I repeat that integrated waste management facilities may be required in the future, and I believe that the necessary finance is available. However, it is a matter for local authorities to locate such facilities sensibly.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I congratulate the Government on their record on recycling and praise my right hon. Friend for his personal commitment to this issue. Will he consider assisting local authorities to deal with a particular item of domestic waste: used domestic batteries? He will know that, except for an excellent scheme in Lancashire, there are hardly any schemes that allow for their recycling. Will he consider ways of encouraging local authorities to recycle domestic batteries and to work with industry to achieve that?
    Mr. Meacher: That is a useful point. [Laughter.] I do not think that it was amusing.
    If batteries are thrown away and collected by local authorities to end up in landfill, that is not the most environmentally sensible way of handling them. There needs to be kerbside collection and separation at source. There is an EU proposal for a producer responsibility directive for batteries. Obviously, in the light of experience of other matters, we shall need to examine the proposal's drafting and we shall consider it carefully. However, the concept is sensible.
    It is already possible for local authorities to put in place arrangements for kerbside collection. We believe that statutory recycling targets will require virtually all local authorities to do that. However, there is nothing to stop them doing that now. I therefore urge local authorities to put in place arrangements for the kerbside collection of products, such as batteries, that should not go into landfill.

    417
    Landfill is not the most environmentally sustainable way of handling them, and kerbside collection will enable them to be collected and reused in a better way.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I was intrigued by the Minister's scathing remarks about local authorities that achieve recycling rates of only 3 to 5 per cent., which he described as abysmal. Does that apply to the authority in Oldham in his constituency, which achieves 4.5 per cent. recycling? Will he compare and contrast that with the position in Tandridge council in my constituency, which achieves 21 per cent. recycling? Will he congratulate Tandridge on that?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that none of the £140 million to which he alluded—it has been ring-fenced to help local authorities—has yet been spent? It is no good boasting about the money, because none of it has been spent. Will not robbing environmental trusts of funds in a desperate bid to bolster the Government's failing recycling strategy deprive many environmental projects of much-needed funding while still failing to save the Government's face over the shambles that they have made of recycling? Their own performance is abysmal.
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is getting better, but he still has some way to go.
    I congratulate those local authorities, such as his, that have a good recycling record. I am delighted about that. I do not know what Oldham's exact position is, but it is certainly in one of the lowest groups. I am targeting precisely such authorities through the £140 million recycling fund in an attempt to help them raise their performance. I point out, however, that Oldham is a Lib-Dem controlled council.
    The £140 million recycling fund is, indeed, ring-fenced and it can be used only for waste-management purposes. We have just completed a consultation about how it will be distributed and we shall make a statement, I hope, very soon, on our conclusions. However, I cannot, of course, at this moment say how much will go to any individual local authority.
    It was a bit rich of the hon. Gentleman to talk about robbing environmental trusts because he is actually referring to the fact that we are reconsidering the landfill tax credit scheme. We want to use that scheme, which we of course inherited from the previous Government, to support sustainable waste management objectives. It has by no means been focused on that. That is why we are reviewing it. We have published indicative guidelines saying that 65 per cent. of the spend should be towards such schemes, including one third of it specifically on recycling. In the next few weeks, we shall issue a consultation paper on the full range of options, from the status quo to full replacement via a public expenditure programme.
    I have said repeatedly to the Wildlife Trust and the other environmental bodies that I am keen that the amount of money that they receive—valuably—for the important projects over which they preside should not be reduced in any redistribution that might be achieved. That remains my position.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: The Minister has referred several times to the importance of recycling in cutting incineration, but is recycling not also an important
    418
    way to cut the number of landfill sites? Is he troubled by the fact that Rhondda, Cynon, Taff council, which, to inform my right hon. Friend, is run by the Welsh nationalists, has only now begun a pilot recycling scheme? Will he undertake on the next occasion that he speaks to his counterpart in the Welsh Assembly to raise his concerns on that matter?
    Mr. Meacher: I am certainly happy to do that, although we have made very clear over a long period the need for a fundamental transformation in the way in which this country handles waste. We are driven by the EU landfill directive. At the moment, we landfill probably more than any other member state—around 85 per cent. of household waste. We must reduce that to no more than 35 per cent. of the 1995 level, which is of course much lower than today's.
    On our reckoning, if we continued current practices all the way to 2016, by which time the change must occur, which of course we certainly shall not, we would in that year have to shift about 33 million tonnes away from landfill. That is why there must be action now on a significant scale.
    The first requirement is waste minimisation—not creating the waste in the first place. Secondly, if the waste is generated, it should be—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I very gently say to the Minister that I have to get through the Order Paper, and the answers are too long.

    Livestock Markets
    Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: What the (a) timetable and (b) mechanics are of opening livestock markets. [29524]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government plan to allow the reopening of some livestock markets from 11 February, subject to biosecurity conditions. Further details will be announced shortly and placed in the Library of the House, published on DEFRA's website and made more generally available.
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Does the Minister realise just what problems there are in trying to get cattle and sheep off places such as Exmoor? One market now serves that area. The market at Bridgwater has gone completely and there is trouble opening Taunton. Will he ensure that the decision to reopen is made—I am glad to hear the date of 11 February and hope that there will be a full opening on that day—and that DEFRA does not impose licences or put other obstructions in the way of that? If it does so, social deprivation on Exmoor will continue, and it is getting desperate.
    Mr. Morley: We are not interested in putting obstructions in the way of the livestock sector but in bringing it back to normality without taking a risk, for example, with latent disease in some of the sheep flocks. We made our proposals available to the livestock industry on 18 January. We have had extensive consultation with the sector because we are trying to strike a balance between ensuring proper biosecurity and minimising risk,

    419
    and recognising the needs of the sector. We have had tremendous co-operation from the livestock sector on that point, and that is why 11 February is the very latest stage of the process. As soon as we can bring the proposals forward, we will do so.
    Charlotte Atkins: Despite the excellent impact of the market towns initiative on Leek, is my hon. Friend aware how anxious communities and farmers are to reopen the livestock market in Leek when the necessary biosecurity measures have been implemented? That would have a huge impact on the morale of farmers and everyone involved in the rural economy. I urge him to ensure that such markets can open as soon as possible.
    Mr. Morley: I understand the case that my hon. Friend makes and how important livestock markets are to the local and regional economy. For that reason, we are in the final stages of our proposals and I am sure that a workable scheme will be in place to achieve the balance that I have outlined.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister aware that livestock markets are the only method by which livestock farmers can get a fair and transparent price for their animals? It is a matter of the greatest urgency that livestock markets, such as Chelford, which lies within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and also serves my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), can operate fully at the earliest opportunity. Will he ensure that costs associated with licensing and all other safety measures are kept to an absolute minimum so that those markets, which are at the centre of rural agricultural activity, can open again to serve the livestock producers of this country?
    Mr. Morley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that administration costs will be kept as low as possible. I emphasise again the risks of spreading disease. We need to think carefully about that, and it is not an issue of contention between us and the livestock industry. I accept what he says about the importance of livestock markets and their social function in communities, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins). However, a range of innovative ways to market livestock have been developed and we should not rule them out. We want to encourage all sorts of innovation and enterprise, wherever that may be, while recognising the role of livestock markets.

    Poland
    Mr. Wayne David: If she will make a statement on the issues discussed with the Polish Government on her recent visit to Poland. [29543]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): I visited Poland on 13 and 14 January and had one-to-one meetings with the Agriculture Minister and the Environment Minister. I encouraged Poland to play an active and constructive part in preparing itself for European Union membership, congratulated the Government on reaching a conclusion
    420
    on the environment chapter and stressed the importance of maintaining the implementation and enforcement programme.
    Mr. David: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. I am sure that she will agree that EU enlargement, including Polish membership, cannot wait until we reform the common agricultural policy. Does she also agree that the development strategy is extremely important post-enlargement and that there is already a great deal of common ground between the Polish Government and the British Government?
    Margaret Beckett: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. The UK Government have always taken the view and approach that CAP reform should be pursued, and we strongly support enlargement. We wish to pursue those separate developments in parallel, but I agree that one is not conditional on the other. I also agree that it is important to do what we can to support rural development. He is right to identify from our discussions that the Polish Government see eye to eye with us on a number of issues.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: During the Secretary of State's discussions with her Polish counterpart, did she have an opportunity to discuss the role of good administration in a representative democracy? I wrote to her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), the right hon. Lady herself and each of her Front-Bench companions. Since March, I have sent no fewer than nine letters on matters concerning their Department. I tabled a written parliamentary question in November which was not answered, nor were any of my other letters—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is nothing to do with Poland. Can the Minister answer the question?
    Margaret Beckett: In so far as I followed it. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has written to my Department and not received a reply, I offer him the most profound apology. He will know, because we have written to every hon. Member—I hope that that letter at least has arrived—that there have been enormous problems with handling correspondence in my Department. Strenuous attempts have been made to overcome that. We are under the impression that a great deal has been done to tackle the backlog, but I shall look at once into his complaint.

    Rural Strategy
    Mr. David Drew: If she will make a statement on the recent discussions about rural strategy she has had with parish and town councils and their representative body. [29544]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): The Government are breaking new ground in engaging with the work of parish and town councils. I am very encouraged by the response to the quality local scheme on which we are consulting at present. The National

    421
    Association of Local Councils is represented on the national rural affairs forum, and will therefore be able to put concerns directly to Ministers.
    Mr. Drew: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging news and declare an interest as a town councillor.
    There is much to be done. I know that liaison with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is very good, but this first and important level of government often relies on the work of parish clerks in terms of capacity. In the past week, I received a letter from one of my best parish clerks, Jane Roberts of Kings Stanley parish council. The council is under a great deal of pressure. It is pleased to have been brought into this aspect of government, but we need to ensure that both clerks and councillors can handle that pressure. How could that be done?
    Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right. I have met parish clerks who act as a powerhouse, enabling parish council members to do a great deal. That is why we have established support for training parish clerks, as we have for training town and parish councillors. We want to give these organisations the capacity not just to represent but to act as a driving force in their communities.
    Sir Michael Spicer: When will I receive an answer to the parliamentary question that I tabled on 15 January, which in turn asked when I would receive an answer to my letter of 3 December asking for a meeting between Upton-on-Severn town council and the Government to discuss matters connected with rural development?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman will receive an answer very quickly, having asked his question today.
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, she recently wrote to every Member explaining that we had discovered a basic systems failure in the correspondence arrangements. Ministers and officials at the Department are putting considerable effort into dealing with the enormous backlog—not a surprising backlog, because of the tremendous problems resulting from foot and mouth disease, which had an impact on Members' postbags and hence on the number of letters to the Department. We will catch up as soon as possible, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the specific example that he gave will be dealt with quickly.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: My constituency contains three excellent councils, Askern, Stainforth, and Thorne and Moorends. Does my right hon. Friend agree that town councils are a fundamental part of our local democracy? Will he confirm that the Government's policy is to strengthen and enhance their role?
    Alun Michael: We certainly want to strengthen and enhance their role. I was encouraged the other day in the Forest of Dean when my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) invited parish council members along to discuss the consultative document that I mentioned earlier. More than 100 parish and town council members turned up, and were enthusiastic, engaged,
    422
    questioning and responsive. I think that the potential exists throughout the country for lifting the game of town and parish councils, and we want to encourage that.

    Meat Imports
    Alistair Burt: If she will make a statement on the progress her Department has made in reforming the regulations governing meat imports. [29545]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): Controls on the import of meat into the United Kingdom from non-EU countries are covered by EU legislation. In the light of the foot and mouth outbreak, we have strengthened the enforcement powers of local authorities in respect of meat that could not have been imported legally, but is found on sale in the UK. We have also taken a number of steps, working with other Departments involved, to improve our ability to prevent and detect illegal imports. We are continuing to keep all measures under review, and are developing other options for further action.
    Alistair Burt: Is the right hon. Lady aware of a case about which I have written to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the context of his responsibility for Customs, concerning my constituent Sue Parke, who travelled from Gatwick on 14 September, three days after the New York outrage? She observed a man—who had reached the train untroubled by Customs—loading some eight 4 ft-square containers into the passenger carriage. She wrote to me
    "The smell of either rotting fish or meat was so strong we immediately stood up to move further up the carriage … The smell was so vile it reached half way down the carriage. The lady next to me felt sick. She apologised for opening the window and letting in the cold night air but I too was glad of some relief from the stench. We travelled for 35 minutes like this."
    My constituent asks me, and I ask the right hon. Lady, why—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State can answer the question now.
    Alistair Burt rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I told the hon. Gentleman that he had finished asking his question; he must sit down.
    Margaret Beckett: The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) knows that we are a trading nation. We export and we also allow imports, which must be properly controlled and handled according to the rules. I shall certainly see whether we can discover any information, and should be grateful if he would let us have as much detail as possible about his constituent's case, which seems extraordinary. While we encourage the speedy and effective detection and pursuit of such issues, I must admit that, at first glance, such a case appears inexplicable.
    Mr. David Kidney: When I held a joint consultation with the Women's Farming and Food Union, it raised this issue. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) is asking why, when millions

    423
    of us pass in and out of the country, we never see any evidence that the Government think that this is a serious issue.
    Margaret Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view that we do not have sufficiently effective publicity—but there is work in hand—to highlight the issue to people as they land in the UK. British travellers would not come into contact with this, but when people make arrangements to come to the UK, they are given advice and information about what is, and is not, legal by travel agents and, for those who require visas, by consulates and embassies; they are told firmly what they are, and are not, allowed to do by those outlets. I share my hon. Friend's view that more should be done as people arrive at the port of entry, and we are working on that.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth.: This afternoon, two Ministers have warned that we need to be on our guard against future outbreaks of foot and mouth. Does not the biggest single risk of another outbreak of foot and mouth come from the fact that we could import it again, simply because our import controls are slack?
    My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) raised a constituency case, but the right hon. Lady should know about recent reports that on one flight arriving at Gatwick airport from Africa, 110 people were found to be carrying illegal imports. That was a spot check. How many imports are coming in that are not found? There are reports of suitcases dripping with blood and covered with maggots or packed with bush rats, antelope meat and monkeys. Who on earth eats that stuff, I cannot imagine. When will the Government begin to take the issue seriously? Is it not the case that as things stand, we could re-import foot and mouth again tomorrow?
    Margaret Beckett: It is not the case that our import controls are lax—[Interruption.] Let me remind Opposition Members that we have strengthened the import controls that we inherited from them. Our import control procedures have been in existence for many years. I take the hon. Gentleman's point; all of us are dismayed when we read the stories about the amount of meat that some individuals bring in. However, the reason why he knows about those stories—[Interruption.] He says that there should not be any, but people are allowed to bring in such material under European Union rules.
    I have raised the issue with the relevant Commissioner, and pressed him to look again at that aspect of the rules. The reason why the hon. Gentleman can cite such cases is that the meat has been identified, detected and found. Many of the stories that are used to create concern and alarm are evidence of the effectiveness of our import controls.
    Paddy Tipping: The Secretary of State made it clear that she has already strengthened controls, but needs to do more. However, any campaign on import controls could lose an important focus if it does not heed
    424
    the lesson of the foot and mouth crisis that we need strong biosecurity measures in our own country. Any campaign that does not recognise that will fail.
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is correct. We cannot afford to neglect any aspect of preventing such disease or its spread. He is right to identify that point, however the foot and mouth outbreak started; we do not yet know, and perhaps will never be absolutely certain how it began. It could have been caused by an import that had come into the country via another member state, but however it came here, biosecurity issues, farming practices, movement of animals and so on are all matters that must be handled and are part of prevention and control.

    Cod Stocks
    Mr. John Wilkinson: If she will make an assessment of the impact of conservation measures for cod stocks in (a) Icelandic and Norwegian waters and (b) waters under the aegis of the EU common fisheries policy. [29546]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): Assessment of cod stocks in Icelandic and Norwegian waters is a matter for those Governments. The package of technical measures for rebuilding certain cod stocks in EU waters that came into operation on 1 January 2002 is designed to make a contribution to bringing stocks back to within safe biological limits, but it will be some time before fisheries scientists will be able to assess the results.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is not the assessment of cod stocks in Icelandic and Norwegian waters essential for proper evaluation of the total potential catch of Atlantic cod? Is it not a fact that the common fisheries policy has been an economic and ecological disaster of the first magnitude? If we were a free independent country and conserved our stocks as well as the Norwegians and Icelanders do, the cod stocks in the north Atlantic would not be under such threat.
    Mr. Morley: Both Norway and Iceland have had their problems with fisheries management and indeed with fisheries conservation. I might remind the hon. Gentleman that this country managed to wipe out its herring stocks before it joined the common fisheries policy. Although the CFP of course has its failings and weaknesses, which we want to address from the UK, whatever the arguments about it, we must have a Europe-wide fisheries conservation measure. That is essential. We must also have such co-operation on the international front in relation to fish conservation.
    Mr. Speaker: Before I call business questions, may I indicate that I am extremely disappointed that we have reached only Question 10 on the Order Paper? The House can co-operate by making sure that we have only brief questions and, of course, brief replies.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House for the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I shall be as brief as possible, Mr. Speaker.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Failure of the Government to Negotiate a Bilateral Agreement on Asylum with France" followed by a debate entitled "Failures of the Government's Pensions Plans". Both debates will arise on a Government motion, or rather an Opposition one—[Laughter.] We might table a Government amendment, it has to be admitted.
TUESDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Progress on remaining stages of the Education Bill.
WEDNESDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Education Bill.
THURSDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Tax Credits Bill.
FRIDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Debate on Government measures to regenerate disadvantaged areas on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Land Registration Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Employment Bill.
WEDNESDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Debate on Defence Policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 15 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting.
The right hon. Gentleman raised with me last week the future of the St. David's day debate. I am pleased to respond to him and announce that there will be a Welsh debate on 28 February, which is as near as I can get it to St. David's day.
The House will also wish to be reminded that, as the Chancellor has already announced, the Budget will take place on Wednesday 17 April.
On Tuesday 12 February, there will be a debate relating to the fight against fraud in European Standing Committee B, and on Wednesday 13 February, there will be a debate relating to the equal treatment directive in European Standing Committee B.
[Tuesday 12 February 2002:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: 9208/01, Protecting the Communities' Financial Interests—the fight against fraud; Commission's Twelfth Annual Report 2000; 9207/01, Protecting the Communities' Financial Interests—the fight against fraud; Action Plan for 2001–2003; Unnumbered Document, Court of Auditors' annual Report 2000. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 152-xii, (2001–02).
Wednesday 13 February:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document: 14492/01, Commission Opinion on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the draft Directive amending the 1976 Equal Treatment Directive. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 152-xii (2001–02).]
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House, especially for his announcement about the St. David's day debate. At least he had the courtesy to announce it to the House and it was not leaked. Pennies drop at varying rates in this place.
Can I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 226, which he will know has today attracted 292 signatures and counting?
[That this House supports the democratic principle that any revised Second Chamber of Parliament should be wholly or substantially elected.]
The motion was tabled by some of the Leader of the House's hon. Friends but it is now supported by nearly 300 hon. Members. As he knows, this is the final day for replies to the consultation on his White Paper on reform of the upper House. In light of the spectacular support for that early-day motion, can he give us an early statement on the Government's intentions as to where we go from here following the disastrous White Paper? The Government are now totally adrift from opinion in the House of Commons and elsewhere.
The Leader of the House has announced that on Monday there will be an Opposition day debate on asylum. I am told that a White Paper on asylum may be imminent. Whether he can confirm that or not, will he pledge that any White Paper on asylum, or indeed on anything else, will be announced first in the House and there will be no spinning, leaking or anything else ahead of its announcement in the House and the opportunity for hon. Members to question the appropriate Secretary of State?
I gather that Lord Birt, who is, apparently, a crony of the Prime Minister and who has been asked by him to do something rather important—namely, to look at the long-term future of our transport system—has refused to appear before the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions. If that is true, is it not yet another example of the utter contempt in which the Prime Minister and his cronies hold the House, its Committees and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who chairs the Committee, and her colleagues? Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking now that he will use his undoubted influence and respect for the House of Commons to persuade Lord Birt to do what he should be willing to do anyway—to come before the Select Committee and give an account of himself? I hope that we can get that undertaking from the Leader of the House today.
I remind the Leader of the House that, in relation to the proposed September sittings of the House, he said:
"I am also advised that there will be roadworks outside the Palace."—[Official Report, 24 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 1010.]
In that connection, has he had discussions with his erstwhile friend, that nice Mayor Livingstone, about the Mayor's plans for extensive alterations to Parliament square? I am sure that the Leader of the House will want

427
to be satisfied that any extensive roadworks initiated by the Mayor relating to Parliament square do not have a serious effect on the ability of the House to perform its functions. I hope that he will be able to report back to us at an early stage on the outcome of his discussions with his nice friend.
Mr. Cook: In response to the right hon. Gentleman's initial statement, I am partial to leeks in the pot but we will try to keep them out of the announcements of the business.
The right hon. Gentleman reminded us that this is the final day for consultation on the Government's White Paper on Lords reform. It would be a bit premature to attempt any statement when the final day has only just arrived. In any case I anticipate that people will wish to make submissions for some time afterwards, but there is no great secret. For the past month, I have said to the House, and indeed to anyone else who would listen, that when consultation finishes we will need a period of reflection in order to establish where the centre of gravity lies behind reform. When we have come to the conclusion of that period of reflection, it will be proper to have a statement in the House.
I follow the early-day motion with weekly interest to see how many hon. Members have signed it, and I have had a number of individual and collective representations from those who signed it. I listen to all views in the House. I repeat what I have said: once we have reflected on all this, it is important that those who want reform find a proposal behind which they can gather.
On asylum and immigration, it may help the right hon. Gentleman if I say that I anticipate that there may be a statement to the House next week. We have promised a Bill on asylum and immigration. I anticipate that that will be before the House this Session. We will have ample opportunity to debate those matters.
On Lord Birt, the Government stand ready to ensure that full evidence is provided by Ministers and senior civil servants. It has not been customary for special advisers to give evidence to Select Committees. I am not aware off hand of a case where an unpaid adviser was summoned to a Select Committee. If that becomes the practice, we may have some difficulty in seeking expert advice from those outside Government ranks.
On Parliament square, I clocked the point made by the right hon. Gentleman last week. We have a right to be considered in this matter. I am often frustrated by the difficulty of getting from Birdcage walk to Parliament square. I hope that we can achieve an outcome that will make things easier, and I will try to resist anything likely to make things more difficult.
Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend might be surprised to find that many mean-minded employers have no intention of paying their hourly paid workers for the public holiday to be held for the Queen's jubilee. Is it not time for a debate about when workers are entitled to be paid for public holidays, recognising the fact that we have fewer public holidays than almost any other country in Europe? It is always the hourly paid or the lowest-paid workers who lose the most.
Mr. Cook: As my hon. Friend will be aware, we introduced the working time directive which, for the first
428
time, provided a right to paid holidays over Christmas and at times such as Easter for 2 million people who had never had paid holidays at those times. Given that the bank holiday on 4 June is to commemorate Her Majesty's jubilee, we would expect all patriotic employers to ensure that their employees can enjoy that day, and enjoy that day with pay.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Can we have an urgent debate to put into context the widespread public and press perception that it is possible, and has been possible for some time, to buy access to and influence over Parliament and Government? In view of the revelations during the past few days from Enron, Arthur Andersen and RMT and now the resignation of Lord Wakeham, which has been announced in the last few minutes, should we not try to achieve a proper sense of direction and perception on these matters? As the Leader of the House will have seen in The Independent this morning, it is important to review the funding of democracy in this country.
Will the Leader of the House ask for an urgent statement from the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about the apparent lack of clarity over where the £2.2 billion that the Secretary of State announced on Tuesday in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is to come from? He said that the additional money will not be taken from the
"roads, buses or local transport budgets."—[Official Report, 29 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 151.]
This morning there was an announcement via a Treasury statement and, to quote The Guardian:
"Gordon Brown ordered his officials to pull the rug from under Mr. Byers after learning the transport secretary had asserted the deal was secured during a meeting the two men had over the weekend.
In a terse statement the Treasury denied any conversation had taken place. It also said the £2.2 billion was not new money but part of an allocation announced last April. Officials suggested the £2.2 billion would almost certainly be taken from the roads budget."
Why should we put up with two Cabinet Ministers making directly contradictory statements within hours of each other?
Mr. Cook: We had a long debate on political party funding during the last Session, in which we passed a significant Bill, and we can keep under review whether there is a will in the country or the House to return to the matter. There was a substantial debate only two years ago and I am not sure that there would be an appetite in the House to make it a priority. [Interruption.] I remind the shadow Leader of the House that the chief executive of Enron in Britain went on record this week saying that there had been broadly similar payments to the Conservative party as to the Labour party. The funds given to the Labour party were for the purchase of tables, and were not donations to the party.
I regard with some mystification why it is thought unusual for a Minister with responsibility for energy to meet representatives from what was, at that time, a major energy company, particularly since the outcome of those discussions was a Green Paper that curtailed rather than expanded the opportunities for Enron within the British market. It is for the hon. Gentleman to explain what BSM received in return for its major donation to the Liberal

429
Democrats. I am sure that we would wish to return to that in some detail if we were to have a further debate on this subject.
I welcome the extra £2 billion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced is available for the rail industry. The travelling public will be more interested in extra investment in rail and a response to the current crisis than in arguments about who telephoned whom over the weekend.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will realise that I am touched by the concern of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but the reality is that it is increasingly difficult for Select Committees to perform their task of scrutiny properly when advisers who take major decisions and give serious advice to the Prime Minister are apparently not available for questioning. I ask my right hon. Friend seriously to consider the problem. Select Committees are told that decisions relating to Government policy are being taken elsewhere than in the specific Departments that they monitor. If that is so, Select Committees must have the right to call such advisers before them.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her observations, and I am happy to say that I will continue to consider those matters. I recognise that temerity is required, but if I may I will correct her on one point. Advisers do not take major decisions. Decisions are taken by Ministers, and they are assisted in that task by senior civil servants. It is right and welcome that the Government occasionally ask others outside government to look further ahead, on an unpaid basis, than we are able to do from day to day. Such activities do not constitute taking decisions. The people whom the Select Committee should hold to account are those who are going to take the decisions.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Leader of the House aware of the great demand for a full debate on Zimbabwe? Such debates have taken place in Westminster Hall, but we surely need a full day's debate in Government time. Every day brings new stories of intimidation, torture and murder of opposition politicians. Draconian laws of the former Zimbabwean Parliament stifle freedom of speech, so how can there be free and fair elections? Why will the Government not act? Is it because they are ashamed that their ethical foreign policy is a shambles?
Mr. Cook: Brushing aside for a second the hon. Gentleman's concluding remark, I agree that it is important that this House sends a clear and united message. The situation in Zimbabwe is alarming and deplorable, and the attacks on opposition politicians are outrageous. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that, even if we start now, it will be difficult to ensure that an election held four weeks from now is free and fair. Having said that, we have worked hard through the European Union and the Commonwealth to ensure that external observers are present to try to curb the worst of the intimidation—an approach that the opposition forces in Zimbabwe have warmly welcomed.
430
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has worked hard to be robust on this issue. He attended yesterday's meeting to seek Zimbabwe's expulsion from the Commonwealth, and secured the support of half of those in attendance. However, we have some way to go before we can achieve the unanimous supported needed to secure expulsion.
Mr. James Wray: I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to early-day motion 690 on asthma and schools.
[That this House recognises that one in seven children has asthma and many children are not getting the support they need at school; believes that children should be able to have immediate access to their inhalers and have a school environment free from dangerous triggers such as tobacco fumes, with members of staff with knowledge to help those in the event of a serious asthma attack; and hopes that more local education authorities will respond to the National Asthma Campaign and implement an asthma policy.]
The National Asthma Campaign is holding a national asthma day in February. It would be nice to debate the matter in the House, because we seem not to have a policy on asthma with regard to schools.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for ventilating an issue that is of considerable concern in many areas—particularly the one that he represents. One matter that puzzled me during the years in which I followed health policy—it is now a pressing issue—was the reason for the significant increase in asthma-related cases, especially among our young people. I shall draw his observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who will doubtless want to respond to them.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: In a week in which beleaguered rail passengers in my constituency have again suffered at the hands of the RMT and its irresponsible industrial action, will the Leader of the House explain why Lord Birt has not appeared before the Select Committee? Is it not true that, according to Standing Orders, a Select Committee can demand that someone appear before it? In an earlier answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the Leader of the House said that there was no need for such a person to appear if he was not paid, or if he was just an adviser, but can that be right? Lord Birt is a Member of the other place—a parliamentarian—so surely he can be called upon to appear before the Select Committee.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman undermines rather than reinforces the case for Lord Birt coming before the Select Committee. Lord Birt has nothing to do with the RMT, South West Trains, or the present strikes. The right hon. Gentleman merely illustrates the danger into which Lord Birt would be sucked if he came before the Select Committee.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the announcements that have postdated this week's debate on the postal services? First, there was a leaked and possibly erroneous rumour that 3,000 of the 9,000 urban sub-post offices were to

431
close. Secondly, the Post Office watchdog made some remarks today about the privatisation of parts of the postal service. Such rumours and remarks are bound to cause massive concern to the public, who want a universal and nationwide postal service. Can we have an early statement on the matter? Does he accept that, when management is not up to scratch, as on the Titanic, the answer is not to scuttle the boat but to get rid of the captain?
Mr. Cook: First, what Postcomm published today were proposals for consultation about competition. Most certainly, we will he following the competition proposals and the consultation on them with the closest interest. We fully understand their great significance to the public and to those who use the Post Office. The one imperative in any judgment that we reach is that we must preserve the universal service provided by the Post Office.
Secondly, there has been no proposal of the sort that has been leaked to the press. If such a proposal were to be made, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would wish to keep the House informed.
Mr. Peter Duncan: The Leader of the House will be aware of the imminent arrival of the Boundary Commission proposals for Scotland. I know that the subject is especially close to his heart. Does he agree that the continued stability of this House depends on fair and equitable representation for all parts of the United Kingdom? I know that the right hon. Gentleman moves in lofty circles, so will he play his part in ensuring that the proposals are implemented in time for the next general election? Will he put behind him the electoral interests of the Labour party, and his own search for a seat?
Mr. Cook: I am reassured to learn that I move in lofty circles. The Government have complied fully with a commitment that we made when we brought in the Scotland Act 1998. We are now carrying that commitment forward, and I understand that the Boundary Commission may make its first report shortly. It is then a matter for the commission to make progress on the subsequent representation and appeals process, which is set out in statute. If we receive the commission's report in good time, I see no reason why it should not be implemented in time for the next general election. That is our current plan.
Ms Gisela Stuart: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt recall that, earlier this week, the House decided who would be its two representatives to the convention on the future of Europe. I should declare an interest, in that I have the honour to be one. Has my right hon. Friend given any thought as to how those representatives will be supported by the House? They will be representatives of the House and not of the Government, so the House will need to be informed of progress, and to have the opportunity to take part in the debate and shape the convention's decisions. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will give full support to the delegates? Has he had some preliminary thoughts about the shape that that support might take?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises the important point of principle that those appointed by this House and the other place to represent Parliament in the convention are
432
representatives of Parliament, and not of the Government. It is therefore important that they receive support from Parliament. I am pleased to say that the Parliament office that we have established in Brussels, in the office of our representative to the European Union, will be happy to support and assist my hon. Friend and her colleague. I know that the Clerks of the House have also invited her to come and see them to discuss how they can make sure that proper resources are available to assist the representatives, in terms of travel arrangements, research and policy briefing. We will be very happy to help in any way that we can.
Derek Conway: Will the Leader of the House assure me that, when the Government publish their response to the consultation exercise on the code of practice for dealing with the remains of the deceased in hospitals, the House will have an opportunity to consider the matter? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the unhelpful and sad case at Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup that involved the disposal of the body of James Fernandez. That baby's death was a tragedy for his parents in the first place, but the subsequent handling of his remains obviously caused them additional sadness. I am sure that the House will extend its sympathy to the family.
The hospital has committed medical and management teams, and the staff are deeply distressed by the exercise. The Leader of the House will understand why, in the fullness of time, we should have the opportunity to debate the resources, assistance and procedures available to the hospital to ensure that such a eventuality does not occur again.
Mr. Cook: The House will wish to echo the hon. Gentleman's deep sympathy and condolences to the parents for what must have been an appalling experience. We all share those views. I also echo the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the staff at the hospital. I have been impressed by the speed and thoroughness with which the hospital management—the trust board—has responded to this appalling event. It has put in place systems to ensure that it cannot happen again. That has to be the right way to respond, but it cannot alleviate the distress caused to the parents.
Mr. George Mudie: Will my right hon. Friend use his powers to bring the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry here to make a statement on the Post Office? Since the debate on Tuesday, we have heard that 8,000 post offices face closure as a result of the new benefit changes. Today's announcement by the regulator that within eight weeks one third of the Post Office's businesses will be privatised is a disgrace.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is quoted today in the press as saying that it is not a matter for her but for the regulator. Does the Leader of the House agree that when half the post offices in this country face closure, a process that will accelerate next year, and the regulator announces a change that will push the redundancies in the post offices beyond the 30,000 already announced, that is very much a matter for the Secretary of State? It is certainly a matter of great interest to Labour Members.
Mr. Cook: It is, of course, a matter of clear and close interest to the Secretary of State. The regulator is entitled

433
to publish what it wishes to publish, but it could not secure the proposals in the consultation paper without primary legislation. That is very much a matter for the House and for the Government, who will be following that consultation closely.
On the figures quoted by my hon. Friend for the closure of post offices, I repeat that Ministers have received no such proposals. The House should be careful in interpreting the figures that have appeared in the press so far and will no doubt appear again in the weeks ahead.
Adam Price: The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that today is the first anniversary of the initial announcement of the loss of 3,000 jobs from Corus in south Wales. He will understand, therefore, how shocked we were to read in the Welsh newspapers that at the same time as Corns workers were battling to save their jobs, the Labour party was lining its pockets with a donation of £125,000 from one of Corus's main competitors. It was not for tables or for drinks—it was hard cash from the chairman of Ispat International.
In the wake of Enron and Andersen, the fear is that the Government's decision not to back the employee buyout was due in part to knowing that a hefty cheque was on its way. We need an urgent statement from the Prime Minister on this. He needs to come clean and not plead the fifth amendment yet again.
Mr. Cook: I am not aware of any donation of the kind that the hon. Gentleman describes. I will investigate the matter and make sure that one of my colleagues responds to the hon. Gentleman. However, I find it unlikely that contemplation of any donation from a competitor of Corns would have any bearing on Government decisions on Corus.
Paul Flynn: Given the announcement that cattle markets are about to be reopened, when can we debate early-day motion 750?
[That this House welcomes the reduction in animal suffering and costs caused by the sale of farm animals through video links, the Internet and direct sales during the enforced closure of animals markets; and calls on the Government to encourage non-market sales in order to reduce risk of infections and to avoid the stress for animals in avoidable journeys and cramped conditions in stock markets.]
We should congratulate farmers on their ingenuity in finding alternatives to cattle markets by selling their animals via direct farm-to-farm sales, video links and the internet? These methods have been a great improvement in reducing animal suffering and costs. Should we not recall that the main way in which foot and mouth was spread was via animal markets and encourage the use of non-market sales to reduce animal suffering and infections?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend rightly identifies one of the major vectors of foot and mouth in the recent outbreak as the enormous—surprisingly high—distances travelled by sheep and cows to market. If one of the consequences has been to promote more local slaughter and sales, I would
434
regard that as welcome. That step would be helpful in ensuring that we can contain any future outbreak, and I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. Michael Jack: This morning, we heard difficult news about the A400M transport aircraft from the BBC. It was suggested that the Germans were about to renege on their obligations to the project and, more disturbingly, that the British Government were looking for alternatives. In light of the problems faced by the aerospace industry, in particular in the north-west of England, may we have an early statement from the Secretary of State for Defence to establish the facts of the matter and what this Government are doing to ensure that the German Government honour their obligations?
Mr. Cock: I fully understand the problems that the aerospace industry is facing and we have discussed them a number of times in business questions. The right hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing to make the German Government take a particular course of action. We cannot do anything. They are a sovereign Government and will reach their own decision. Of course, we are making strong representations to them and will continue to do so; and we will consider any statement that they make later today.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: If there is a debate on the Post Office in the near future, will my right hon. Friend pass on the message that some of us want to know the process and the procedures for sacking regulators? This fellow Corbett, or whatever his name is, has gone too far already. He is going to become an embarrassment to this Government, just like Woodhead before him—we all know what happened to him: he finished up working for The Daily Telegraph and the Tory party. Let us get Corbett out before he causes more damage.
Mr. Cook: I am not sure whether The Daily Telegraph is in the market for more columnists, but I am sure it will note what my hon. Friend has said. I fully understand his point. The more cherry-picking of the large commercial contracts by other parts of the market, the more challenging it becomes for the Royal Mail to maintain its universal service. Obviously, that is a matter that must weigh with us when we consider any outcome of the consultation process. In the meantime, I shall ensure that someone furnishes my hon. Friend with a full description of the process of sacking a Postcomm regulator.
Sir Michael Spicer: The Leader of the House will be aware that a growing number of issues are seriously affecting the ability of Members of the Parliament to carry out their job in this house and elsewhere—data protection matters, tax allowances, expenditure on parliamentary trips abroad and so forth. Some of those matters may require legislative changes. Will he allow an early opportunity for this Chamber to debate some of those issues in detail?
Mr. Cook: I have had exchanges about a number of those issues with the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful to him for keeping me posted on the views of Opposition Back Benchers. I fully share his concern about some of those matters, in particular the way in which the Electoral Commission has pursued the matter of the passes

435
provided to all hon. Members by BAA plc, which is plainly not a political donation in any meaningful sense of the word.
On data protection, I hope that my last letter to the hon. Gentleman will have been of some assistance. We stand ready to consider whether legislation requires amendment. I hope that we can find a solution to those questions short of primary legislation, but it is important that hon. Members should be able to go about their business and be free to make representations on behalf of their constituents without facing undue legal obstacles.
David Cairns: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the plight of asbestos sufferers who are still awaiting compensation, including some of my constituents? Despite the great efforts of the Secretary of State for Scotland, among others, it appears that every time that we take one step forward in this matter we take two backwards. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an urgent statement or debate that would allow all hon. Members the opportunity to get to the bottom, once and for all, of why it is taking so long for much needed and deserved compensation to get into the hands of those who are afflicted by that terrible disease?
Mr. Cook: I am glad that my hon. Friend has had an opportunity to raise on the Floor of the House an issue that is important to him and which he has had diligently pursued for some time. I welcome the fact that that issue has been ventilated in debates in Westminster Hall, which underlines the importance of that Chamber in enabling hon. Members to raise issues of concern to them and their constituents. I will draw my hon. Friend's observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and ensure that my hon. Friend receives a further letter.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Leader of the House understands and knows of my deep interest in Zimbabwe, and that he is aware of the affection and respect in which I hold its people. Although I respect the robust position adopted by our Foreign Secretary at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting held yesterday, will the Leader of the House please understand that unless a substantial number of observers and monitors are sent to Zimbabwe now, there is not the slightest chance of a free, transparent and fair election? Inevitably, Zimbabwe would thus be breaching the fundamental principles of membership of the Commonwealth. Will the right hon. Gentleman please arrange for a statement to be made to the House as to the precise attitude and position of the Government, and hopefully of the Commonwealth, in respect of Zimbabwe, so that the opposition parties fighting the election can believe that they have some support overseas?
Mr. Cook: I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about his longstanding interest in this matter. Indeed, I remember him asking questions during my previous incarnation at this Dispatch Box. It is tragic that, in Zimbabwe, President Mugabe portrays Britain as the enemy when in fact there are so many people both in the House and throughout Britain who regard themselves as friends of Zimbabwe and want to see the country prosper.
436
The hon. Gentleman asks about our position in respect of electoral observers. Let me again make it clear: we robustly and vigorously insist on the right of the international community to observe those elections and on the right of the ordinary public in Zimbabwe to have that international presence in order to curb some of the intimidation and thuggery to which they are subject, and we shall continue to do all that we can to try to deliver that.
Dr. Brian Iddon: I have a registered interest in my question, as patron of the Society of Registration Officers. Last week, through the Economic Secretary, the Government published a White Paper entitled "Civil Registration: Vital Change". It certainly will be vital change. I have heard that the changes may be made by delegated legislation. If that is so, there should be a debate on what will be one of the biggest reforms of the registration service in probably a century. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for such a debate in this place?
Mr. Cook: I cannot commit myself on whether the matter will be dealt with by delegated or primary legislation—I am not sighted on that point, although I see no immediate prospect of primary legislation on that important step forward. If it should proceed by delegated legislation, there is provision for the House to debate delegated legislation of importance and substance. My hon. Friend rightly identifies this matter as one of substance and I shall consider his point carefully.
Mr. Charles Hendry: The Leader of the House will have seen the report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies concluding that taxes will have to rise by £7 billion if the Government are to meet their spending commitments, and that the Chancellor is in danger of breaching his so-called golden rule—that he will borrow only in order to invest. As we have not held a debate on the economy since the election and as the Budget is still 11 whole weeks away, does the Leader of the House understand why we feel that the House needs a full opportunity to debate the economy? In the light of the IFS report, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need an emergency mini-Budget in the time-honoured tradition of Labour Governments?
Mr. Cook: As Leader of the House, I counsel the House not to press for a mini-Budget as well as the real Budget on 17 April—I am not sure that would be an efficient use of the House's time. As for the Institute for Fiscal Studies, in my recollection, it has been predicting that taxes would rise for the past four years and has always been wrong.
Mr. Eric Joyce: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the Geneva convention? There has been much comment and debate in the House during the past few weeks on the subject of the al-Qaeda prisoners in Cuba. There has been much confusion over who is actually a prisoner and who should be subject to criminal trial. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that could put British armed forces personnel in danger, and that a debate would help to inform our future discussions about the prisoners in Cuba?
Mr. Cook: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes about the legal complexities. However, as I have

437
told the House previously, the nub of the matter is not whether the Geneva convention applies: it is that the prisoners should be treated according to the humanitarian standards that we all recognise and uphold whether or not the convention applies. I am therefore pleased that the Red Cross has now secured a permanent presence at Guantanamo bay and has been able to confirm that the conditions observed there are consistent with the convention.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I urge the Leader of the House to listen to his own Back Benchers a little more carefully than I fear he has done hitherto today, and to allow an early opportunity for a debate in the House on the future of postal services. In particular, I refer to the proposals announced this morning by Postcomm to deregulate postal services, the first tranche of which deregulation will take place in the next eight weeks. The Leader of the House may be aware that my constituency includes some of the few communities not covered by the universal service obligation. Frankly, we view with alarm the prospect of a deregulated service, which will not be able to serve the more remote island communities that I represent.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that, if there is to be a decision to deregulate postal services and to end the universal service obligation, it will be made here in the Chamber? We must not be bounced into such a decision by a body such as Postcomm proposing, as it did this morning, a meaningless decision to take the first step within eight weeks.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the importance of the universal service obligation to the hon. Gentleman's constituency and many others in Scotland—and, indeed, to quite a number of people in the more landward areas in my own constituency. That is why the Government have always made it plain that there is no question of removing the universal service obligation from the Post Office. Postcomm does not make Government policy; nor do we write its documents. Any attempt to undermine the universal service obligation would have to come back to the House and, on the basis of what I have heard this morning—which does not surprise me—I do not anticipate that the House would countenance such a proposal.
David Winnick: Is it not rather strange that the regulator's report should come out just two days after our debate on the Post Office? I was among the Labour MPs who strenuously opposed and voted against the Tories' proposals to privatise the Post Office, and I have not changed my mind in the slightest. I hope that Ministers will seriously reconsider a scheme that would be totally unacceptable to many of us on these Benches.
Mr. Cook: Of course I remember my hon. Friend's opposition to the privatisation of the Post Office, particularly as—if I recall correctly—I occupied the Opposition Dispatch Box in those debates. There has been no proposal from the Government on the privatisation of the Post Office. It is only a year or two since we gave the Post Office the commercial freedom that it wanted, so that
438
it could operate in the public sector—with commercial freedom of the kind that it would enjoy in the private sector—and meet the competition. I have listened with interest and care to the points that hon. Members have raised, and I shall certainly draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the deep concern felt in the House.
David Winnick: On this side.
Mr. Cook: Well, on both sides, in fairness to my hon. Friend. I always try to build consensus, even if it sometimes eludes me. I repeat that this morning's statement was not made by Government, and it is not Government policy. We had no control over its timing, and I recognise the concern to which it has given rise.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Last week, I raised with the Leader of the House an issue relating to correspondence with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Today, I have received the following letter from the Department:
"You will be aware that the Rt Hon Margaret, Secretary of State at DEFRA, will be in your Constituency on Tuesday 5 February, on a Regional visit to Cumbria. She will open Hartington Hall Youth Hostel."
Will the Leader of the House inform the Secretary of State that Hartington is in Derbyshire, that her constituency abuts my constituency, and that if she is opening Hartington Hall youth hostel in Cumbria, she is going to be in the wrong place again?
Mr. Cook: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be very grateful for that advice, which I will draw to her attention. We will also make sure that the correspondence unit at DEFRA has an adequate map of the British isles.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that children as young as nine are being issued with firearms certificates in this country? Does he share my concern that some shooting bodies, in an effort to boost recruitment, feature children as young as three in magazines and on websites, posing with guns and dead animals, and sometimes smeared with blood? Is it not time that we introduced an age restriction and tougher guidance on children's access to firearms? Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on this matter?
Mr. Cook: The whole House will share my surprise that there is access to licensed weapons at the age to which my hon. Friend refers. Weapons are dangerous enough in the hands of some adults, without letting them into the hands of children. I shall certainly draw the important point raised by my hon. Friend to the attention of the Home Office.
Dr. Julian Lewis: It is all very well for the Leader of the House to agree with the remarks about Zimbabwe by my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), but he shows no sign of urging the Government to grant a debate in Government time or make a statement on the terrible situation there. The Government have done too little, too late to protest about Zimbabwe, and the failure of the Commonwealth

439
to take any action can only lead people to conclude that the Commonwealth, the United Nations and the British Government, taken together, have taken less effective action against Robert Mugabe than did the gay campaigner Peter Tatchell. Will the Leader of the House now promise us a debate or a statement on the terrible situation in Zimbabwe?
Mr. Cook: I wholly repudiate what the hon. Gentleman says about our record on Zimbabwe. We have taken every possible step to bring home to the Government of President Mugabe our deep concern and alarm at the state of affairs within the country. We have wound up all economic assistance to that Government, while maintaining humanitarian aid, and we have withdrawn our military team from the country. We have acted against Zimbabwe in the European Union, where we have now secured a consensus in favour of economic sanctions if we do not secure free and fair elections, and we have started a debate in the Commonwealth, in which yesterday we got the support of 50 per cent. of those present. We are vigorously taking action and leading international opinion on this matter. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman does not help his cause or those on whose behalf he claims to be speaking by trying to undermine the degree of the concern felt by the Government and the people.
Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a statement or an early debate on young people's participation in politics? He will know that the UK Youth Parliament had a meeting here yesterday. Surely one of the most important issues facing us all must be the apparent lack of interest in this place shown by our young people. It is one of the most important debates in which we in this Chamber could engage.
Mr. Cook: I shall certainly reflect on how we can take forward that discussion among ourselves. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of drawing young people into participation in politics. All of us, whatever view we take of the result and whatever side of the House we sit on, must be concerned about the substantial reduction, at the last election, in the number of young people who voted. We must all find ways in which we can engage their interest and participation to ensure that, next time, there is a higher turnout by young people.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I join, on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, the voices in the House calling for further debate on the Post Office.
I remind the Leader of the House that Scottish Members have in the past complained about too many English Members asking questions at Scottish questions. In fact, on one occasion, a Member said, "I spy strangers." May I press the right hon. Gentleman to consider that, for some time, now, Northern Ireland Members who have tabled questions for answer at Northern Ireland questions have not been coming up in the first five and thus do not get their question answered in the House? I thank the Speaker, who has been very helpful in trying to give Northern Ireland Members an opportunity to speak at Northern Ireland questions. This is an important issue,
440
especially when it appears that some questions have been franchised, and are not those that Northern Ireland Members would want to ask.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the important principle that this is a United Kingdom Parliament in which all Members are equal. I understand the frustration to which he refers, but I am not sure that it is within the gift of myself, the Speaker or indeed the Clerks to achieve a different outcome. The placing of questions on the Order Paper results from a random ballot, and if we tamper with that ballot, it is not only Northern Ireland questions that I will find myself receiving questions about.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Further to the question that I asked my right hon. Friend on 8 November about Zephyr Cams—a company that is now in receivership—does he agree that it is a scandal that, while the 65 people who have lost their jobs are still owed wages and have not received any redundancy money, with the possibility that the taxpayer may have to pick up the bill, the owner of the company, Mr. Kenny Joseph of Wells Industries, New Jersey, remains unscathed, enjoying the luxury of his multi-million pound apartment in New York and his even more expensive house in The Hamptons? Can we have a debate on insolvency law, especially as that individual did the same sort of thing with two other companies in Weston-super-Mare a few years ago?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has raised that distressing case before, and I am glad that he has had the opportunity to ventilate it again in the House; he draws attention to what must be a local scandal in his constituency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is currently examining insolvency and bankruptcy law, and I will draw her attention to the observations that my hon. Friend has made about that case.
Mr. Christopher Chope: When can we have a debate to discuss the Government's total indifference to the plight of small firms being put out of business by Government regulation? Is the Leader of the House aware of the plight of firms involved in the British embalming industry and the impact on that industry of the biocide products directive? Is he aware that, in the opinion of the British Institute of Embalmers, the regulation will,
"in the case of funeral businesses, turn the clock back at least 100 years to the bad old days of rotting corpses being commonplace at the funeral"?
Does it not show absolute contempt for that industry that I wrote to the Secretary of State seven weeks ago and he has not even had the courtesy to reply to the concerns that I expressed on behalf of that industry and an individual embalmer in my constituency?
Mr. Cook: I must confess that I am not up to speed on the present position in relation to the British embalming industry, but I shall try to rectify that as quickly as I can after this exchange. I will certainly speak to the appropriate Secretary of State to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets his reply. I can assure the House that the Government do not intend, as he put it, to return to the days of rotting corpses at the time of the funeral. We will certainly ensure that that does not happen.
Shona McIsaac: Given that the 400th anniversary of the gunpowder plot will occur in 2005,

441
will my right hon. Friend consider commemorating that anniversary by restricting the sale of explosives in the form of fireworks to the general public, as has been eloquently articulated in early-day motions 346, 419 and 682, which have been signed by many hon. Members from both sides of the House. The first of them reads:
[That this House notes the increasing nuisance caused by reckless and dangerous use of fireworks, and that the sale of fireworks is taking place for many weeks before 5th November; further notes that the 400th anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot will occur in 2005; and believes that before that date the Government should bring forward legislation better to regulate and restrict the sale of fireworks.]
Mr. Cook: I am fully aware of the deep concern in the House about the sale of fireworks and the importance of ensuring that they are properly regulated and that there is proper safety for our constituents. We all know of local cases where things have gone tragically wrong. I will convey my hon. Friend's remarks to the appropriate Secretary of State to ensure that we consider all that can done. I am not entirely sure that it would be wise to start to plan now for a big event to celebrate the gunpowder plot in 2005; some people could probably think of ways to celebrate it that the House would not wish to encourage.
Mr. Mark Simmonds: Will the Leader of the House consider holding an urgent debate on illegal hare coursing—an issue of great concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House? Gangs of thugs currently roam the countryside, intimidating residents and torching the yards of farmers who try to stop them rampaging across fields full of crops. That is completely unacceptable, and I would be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he could arrange an urgent debate, because the police fully support a change in the anachronistic laws that currently cover those crimes.
Shona McIsaac: What about hunting?
Mr. Cook: May I tell my hon.
Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) that—whatever view we may take of hunting, which is legal—hon. Members on both sides of the House can agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no basis on which any of us should countenance illegal hunting of the kind that he describes. I will certainly ensure that we reflect on the point that he makes, to find out whether we can ensure that it is covered at an appropriate time in future.
Mr. Mark Francois: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the treatment of cancer patients in the national health service? Such a debate would provide the House with an opportunity to debate the Government's proposals to run down cancer services at Southend hospital, thus forcing many patients, many of whom are elderly, to travel possibly as far as Suffolk for their treatment. That is a matter of great concern to all residents in south-east Essex, so I wonder whether time can be found for such an important debate.
Mr. Cook: I am not aware that the House is short of opportunities to debate the health service, and I am
442
confident that it will continue to remain high on our agenda. On cancer services, I remind the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he is aware of this but it may have slipped his mind—that there is a substantial programme for the expansion of oncology services, and specifically for the expansion of oncology specialist consultants. We shall continue to press ahead with that. I cannot comment on the decision taken by his local health authority on local services, but the national picture is one of improvement.
Pete Wishart: As the Leader of the House is no doubt aware, Arthur Andersen is involved in 37 of the Government's private finance initiative projects, and Ministers have referred to the Andersen report on 44 occasions in support of the private finance initiative. Could we therefore have an early statement about the status of the Government's PFI, given the extremely serious allegations of corporate malpractice by Arthur Andersen?
Mr. Cook: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his arithmetic in counting up references by Ministers to Arthur Andersen. I remind him that Arthur Andersen receives a smaller number of Government contracts than many other major accountancy firms, and that the PFI has been examined not only by Arthur Andersen but, as the Prime Minister reminded the House, by PricewaterhouseCoopers and by the National Audit Office, which is a public sector body that invigilates Government decisions. They have all reached the same conclusion—that the PFI provides value for money.
Mr. Mark Field: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting several debates in recent weeks in Westminster Hall in relation to London infrastructure issues—in particular, the congestion charge, the London underground and the funding of the Metropolitan police. However, will the Leader of the House ensure, as a matter of urgency, that the House has a full debate on the entirety of London infrastructure, because the issue causes great concern not only to London's 13 Conservative Members but to Liberal Democrat Members and Labour Members?
Mr. Cook: I announced earlier that, according to tradition, we would have a debate on Wales on St. David's day. I am aware that other parts of the United Kingdom may also want a debate to examine their regional issues, and I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Hugh Robertson: This week has seen not only the state of the union address in the United States, which has implications for the fight against terrorism, but the visit of Mr. Hamid Karzai to London and the continued participation of our forces in operations in southern Afghanistan and with the security force there. The Leader of the House said that there would be an Adjournment debate on defence. However, can time be found to debate the war against terrorism and, especially, Afghanistan—we have not done so for some time—not least so that our service men involved in those operations know that they are at the forefront of our thoughts?
Mr. Cook: I am confident that next week's debate will make it clear that British servicemen, especially those

443
who are on service abroad, are at the forefront of the thoughts of the Government and the House. I was present when Hamid Karzai addressed the Cabinet this morning. His speech was impressive. There is a strong commitment to making sure that we rebuild his country so that it does not again become a threat to other nations, whether through terrorism or through the export of drugs.
I can report to the House that Mr. Karzai expressed warm appreciation of the role that Britain has played in securing that success in Afghanistan. I am tempted to have a further debate on international terrorism so as to explore the relation between that and the speech that I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is giving today, which offers a narrow definition of the national interest in terms of defence. Such a definition would not have made it possible for us to do what we have done in Afghanistan.
Dr. Evan Harris: At last week's business questions, I asked, in the context of the Adoption and Children Bill which will shortly come back to the House, whether the Government will support moves to enable unmarried couples to apply for joint adoption of children. The Leader of the House said that
"the Government's position … is that the interests and welfare of the child must always come first."— [Official Report, 24 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 1023.]
The vast majority of the constituent members of the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering believe that it can be in the best interests of the welfare of the child if unmarried couples are allowed to apply for adoption and if the merits of their case are considered by the courts and adoption agencies.
444
Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore clarify that the Government will support an amendment to allow such couples to apply for adoption, or at least provide a free vote in the light of the cross-party amendment that was tabled in my name? Given that the amendment has received the support of Labour Members and Conservative Members, it should be allowed to be considered without a Whip being applied, at least on Government Members.
Mr. Cook: I would not want the remark that I made last week to be read as ruling out adoption by unmarried couples. Indeed, on the contrary, I thought that I was saying that we should judge each case on its merits and ensure that at the end of the day the best solution is found for the child. I am sure that any discussion during the remaining stages of the Adoption and Children Bill will reflect that.
Mr. Mark Hoban: In Fareham, there is one NHS dental practice and one dental access centre to cope with the dentistry needs of nearly 100,000 people. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the crisis in NHS dentistry, which affects many constituencies and not just mine?
Mr. Cook: I am well aware of the problems in the dentistry service. They of course reflect more than anything else the way in which the previous Administration ratcheted up charges for NHS dentistry to the point where, for many patients, it was not worth while going on the NHS, and many were then forced to go private, as were many of the dentists. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should address some remarks to the team in office during that period.

Points of Order
1.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know better than anyone the contents of Standing Order No. 152 relating to Select Committees, in which it says that they
"shall have power … to send for persons, papers and records".
You will similarly know that Erskine May says on page 647, among other things, that
"when a select committee has the power to send for persons, that power is unqualified".
Flowing from that, could you remind the House and the Leader of the House that very few people are exempted from the powers that we—the House of Commons—have given Select Committees? Among the very small groups exempted, as it happens, are Members of the upper House, which makes one wonder whether the Prime Minister selected a Member of the other House to be a special adviser on transport precisely to give him that peculiar immunity—but that is a matter not for you, Mr. Speaker, but for the Prime Minister.
I ask you to clarify one important matter. The Leader of the House, no less, appeared to imply in one of his earlier statements that in some mysterious way special advisers and unpaid advisers to the Government should not and may not be summoned to appear before Select Committees. Will you confirm that the contents of Standing Order No. 152 and of Erskine May entitle and empower Select Committees to summon anyone other than Members of this House and the House of Lords to appear before them to give evidence?
Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that a Select Committee of this House is currently examining precisely what role Select Committees should have. In view of the concern among members of all parties that Select Committees should be allowed to do their job properly and to scrutinise the work of Government, will you take it on yourself to tell the Modernisation Committee that, if there are loopholes in the Standing Orders, as implied a few minutes ago, they should be assessed again in order to ensure that the views expressed by the Chairman of the Select Committee concerned and of members of all parties are urgently considered?
446
Is it not clear that although the witness concerned may not be able to give the Select Committee the results of his study, he should at least be able to appear before that Committee to indicate his remit, the advice and support that he has received, and what job he is doing, especially bearing in mind the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has indicated that the purpose of the exercise is just to keep Lord Birt occupied?
Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of the Select Committee concerned will have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments.
I say to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House, who gave me some notice of his point of order, that a Committee's power to send for persons other than Members of either House is not limited in this way. Generally, of course, witnesses attend Committees without compulsion, sometimes after discussion. Full details are set out on page 646 of Erskine May and later pages.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001],
That, pursuant to the report of 24th January 2002 from Standing Committee D, the Order of 8th January 2002 (Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme)) shall be varied as follows—

Consideration and Third Reading
1. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two allotted days.
3. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the second of those days or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
5. An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the day.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords]
    Clause 1

      ELIGIBILITY FOR TRAVEL CONCESSIONS: AGE
      1.34 pm
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—
      '(IA) In section 94(1) of the Transport Act 1985 (administration of schemes: reimbursement, etc), after paragraph (a), there is inserted—
      "(aa) the method by which the authority is to be reimbursed, whether through the Revenue Support Grant or otherwise, in respect of any expenditure arising from the operation of the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Act 2002.".'.
      The Bill is narrowly drafted and it was with only some ingenuity that we managed to table an acceptable amendment. A layman may find its purpose more clearly set out in new clause 1, which states:
      The Secretary of State shall reimburse each local authority for the full and actual cost of any concessionary fares scheme by special or specific grant rather than through the Standard Spending Assessment."
      The Bill provides for additional costs to be reimbursed through the normal SSA mechanism. The full compliance cost has been subject to debate. It was originally estimated to be £50 million. On receiving better particulars, however, the Government increased it to about £54 million, and I hope that that is the full cost.
      The problem is that some small local authorities—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) will raise the case of his particular authority—receive no reimbursement through the SSA system. The Government are inflicting an imposition that is one of a long list of impositions that they have placed on local authorities that are not being fully funded. The best value initiative is the most expensive, but others, such as the increased cost of pensions as a result of the abolition of additional advance corporation tax requirements, are also a problem.
      The Bill imposes a requirement on local authorities and not all of them will be fully reimbursed for implementing it. That is not true of some larger metropolitan authorities. Under the SSA, a global figure is calculated for each authority and included in the rate support grant settlement each year. Whereas a large chunk of money will be allocated to the larger metropolitan authorities, a small amount, or none at all, will be allocated to smaller authorities.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: Is that not the story of local government across the board? Broadbrush figures are produced, as in this case; no effort is made afterwards to discover whether they are fair; and smaller and typically rural authorities almost always lose out.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right: smaller and largely rural authorities are likely to lose out.
      448
      Having outlined the problem, let me turn to the solution. The amendment would ensure that local authorities are specifically reimbursed for the actual costs that they incur. That is a simple requirement. If the Government are to fund the scheme in full, it should be largely revenue neutral. Some larger metropolitan authorities will be overcompensated and other authorities will be undercompensated, so the net cost should be little, if any.
      The Government have increased a number of special grants. Surely it would be very simple either to allocate a block of money through the SSA system and make a reimbursement afterwards, or to let authorities make an estimate at the beginning of each financial year, in which case an adjustment could be made before the next financial year on production of properly audited records of the scheme's costs.
      We consider the amendment to be eminently fair and eminently workable. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: As was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), my purpose in tabling the amendment was to draw attention to a gross and unjust anomaly affecting the two district councils in my constituency, Christchurch and East Dorset. The concessionary fares legislation in the Transport Act 2000, implemented last year, has required them to incur additional costs that are some £250,000 higher than the Government's so-called reimbursement. That is very unsatisfactory.
      The amendment would add to the list of matters in respect of which regulations can be made under section 94(1) of the Transport Act 1985, and would enable the Secretary of State to produce regulations relating to the method by which an authority responsible for the administration of a travel concession scheme is reimbursed in respect of any expenditure arising from the operation of the Bill.
      We cannot do anything in this Bill about what has happened as a result of the earlier legislation. What we can do is try to prevent the Government from making the same mistake again. Obviously, extending the scheme to cover men aged between 60 and 65 as well as those over 65 will involve an additional cost. It was estimated for the purposes of the 2000 Act that local authorities' total costs would be £54 million. At the time, the Government said that they thought it fair for Government to pick up the tab—for the national taxpayer to pay; because this was Government policy, they would reimburse local authorities.
      If we ascribe to the word "reimbursement" the meaning it is assumed to have in common English parlance, it means giving back to an individual or an organisation money that that individual or organisation has spent on a particular project or for a particular purpose.
      Mr. Brazier: Surely my hon. Friend does not wish to stretch the House's imagination by suggesting that the Government use English in the way in which most of us are accustomed to use it.
      Mr. Chope: That is an excellent point.

      449
      It is interesting that the Minister for Transport is not replying to this debate, because he dealt with the issue in Committee. During the Committee's first sitting, he said
      "The Government have to deal with a different dilemma—to decide the extent to which national minimum standards are set and to deal with the financial consequences of that and of ensuring that local councils do not lose money."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 November 2001; c. 26.]
      If that is indeed the Government's objective, they manifestly failed to deliver on it in relation to the original scheme. They already have the power to change the reimbursement system—the amendment is not necessary in that regard—but they have decided not to do so. I do not understand why, but I suspect that the councils that are losing out as a result of this new Government imposition are largely Conservative-controlled, and those which will gain disproportionately, and have already done so, are Labour-controlled.
      1.45 pm
      That is not an academic or pedantic point of debate; it is one of substance and may significantly affect council tax payers in my area. At the moment, East Dorset district council is spending £160,000 a year on concessionary travel as a result of the Government's minimum statutory standard, in addition to the £97,000 that it has previously spent on its local discretionary targeted scheme. There are a lot of pensioners in East Dorset—22,740, representing more than 25 per cent. of the population. How much did East Dorset district council get back as a contribution to the additional cost of £160,000? The answer is a big round zero; it got nothing back at all because it does not get any revenue support grant, just redistributed business rates. The idea that the Government are going to reimburse East Dorset district council and its council tax payers for the cost of those concessionary fares is pie in the sky.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that his small district council will be required by law to provide those schemes? The de facto situation is that it is not being fully reimbursed, so it will have to make up the difference with an even bigger increase in council tax. I believe that my hon. Friend's local authority is already proposing one of the larger rises in council tax in the country in any case.
      Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right. East Dorset district council is not getting back any money at all from the Government to compensate for the additional statutory duty placed on it by concessionary fares legislation. Under the Bill, additional costs will be incurred and, again, the council will not receive any additional money from the Government. Ironically, the additional cost of £160,000 must be paid for by council tax payers, many of whom are pensioners. The Minister will know that the impact of council tax on pensioners is twice as severe as it is for people who have not yet reached pensionable age. As I said in the House the other day, as a result of Labour policies, more than 1 million pensioners now spend more than 10 per cent. of their disposable income on council tax. The position for East Dorset residents is getting worse as a result of those Government impositions.
      The situation in Christchurch is a little better. The Minister may know that we have 14,287 pensioners, constituting 32 per cent. of our population. Christchurch
      450
      borough council spent £74,000 on a targeted concessionary fares scheme before legislation was introduced. In the current year, it had to make an additional budget provision of £93,000 for the mandatory scheme, which was restricted to travel within the borough boundary. That limited and narrow scheme did not go down well with local people, who much preferred the previous scheme, which offered more generous concessions for those in greatest need. The consequence now is that Christchurch borough council is thinking about whether it can afford to introduce a Dorset-wide scheme. If it did so, however, the costs would increase from an additional £93,000 to an additional £150,000 a year. How much do you think the council received in reimbursement under the revenue support grant formula, Madam Deputy Speaker? It received £20,000 in respect of additional costs of £93,000—costs that will continue to increase as a result of the new statutory requirements in the Bill.
      Mr. Bill Wiggin: My concern is that council tax will have to be increased most in the areas where the largest number of pensioners live and that those who win on their bus passes will therefore lose when they get their council tax bill. Does my hon. Friend share that concern?
      Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The largest proportion of my correspondence is currently from pensioners on fixed incomes who are again faced with the prospect of council tax increases that are significantly above the rate of inflation and far higher than their pension increases will be. That is happening at a time when the interest on their savings and investments is declining significantly as a result of low inflation. I enthusiastically support the policy of low inflation, but it has had a devastating impact on the budgetary arrangements of a number of pensioners who had planned on the basis that their investments would produce a rather higher yield than that which they are now receiving. In order to pay for these new impositions, such pensioners are having to cut back on other items of expenditure. Council taxes are, by definition, unavoidable, so they have the first call on the limited resources of the individuals concerned.
      In Committee, the Minister for Transport said:
      "We are committed to the new burdens principle, which means that we will reimburse local authorities for the extra cost that they face as a result of local authority concessionary fare schemes requiring action under the Bill."
      He went on to say:
      "If it is an existing scheme that must be amended to comply with the Bill, the Government will reimburse local authorities for the extra cost."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 November 2001; c. 30]
      Unfortunately, it does not appear that that will happen. The amendment gives us the opportunity to press the Under-Secretary for a commitment that she will reimburse local authorities for the extra cost. We all know that the House has a system whereby hon. Members are reimbursed out of taxpayers' money for the cost of stationery and office equipment. It would be extraordinary if, in pursuance of the principle of reimbursement, the House authorities said that some hon. Members were to receive more than they had spent and that others were to receive less or indeed nothing. If the word "reimbursement" means anything, surely it is putting the

      451
      local authorities or individuals in the position in which they would have been before the new imposition. If the new burdens principle to which the Minister for Transport referred means anything, surely it should apply to each local authority on an equal basis. I cannot believe that that principle was intended to mean that the burden on one local authority would be reduced by imposing fresh burdens on another.
      The Minister for Transport used opaque expressions in Committee to try to parry the probing questions of my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). He said:
      "The mechanism will be that the extra costs will be fed into the rate support grant, at the lower end of the environment protection and cultural services block. All other things being equal, local authorities will broadly receive additional funding in proportion to their current share of the EPCS local tier."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight asked:
      "Is the Minister saying … that he will pay to authorities—broadly or otherwise—only the sum that enables them to pay for the minimum laid down by the Government?"
      The Minister for Transport said:
      "No. We are saying clearly that the change in legislation places an additional burden on local authorities. Accordingly, the Government will make money available to cover that additional cost."
      I see the Under-Secretary nodding. I hope that that indicates that she will undertake on behalf of the Government to reimburse East Dorset district council and Christchurch borough council for the additional costs of the new statutory requirements imposed by the Government.
      The Minister for Transport went on to say:
      "We are in discussion with the local authorities as regards the methodology involved, following the well-established procedure for the rate support grant. If that procedure throws up significant anomalies, local authorities, as the hon. Gentleman will probably accept, will not be backward about raising the issue."— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 November 2001; c. 27–29.]
      I quote extensively from what the Minister for Transport said because I do not want the Under-Secretary to start using the same language. That language was no doubt designed to give the impression of reasonableness and to comfort the victims of unjust distribution, but effectively the words were a sham; indeed they were a confidence trick calculated to deceive. We know that the procedure for reimbursing local authorities under existing legislation has thrown up significant anomalies, some of which I have drawn to the House's attention already and which continue to be drawn to the Government's attention by local authorities and local authority associations. What are the Government doing about it? Absolutely nothing. That is totally unacceptable. I hope that the Under-Secretary will have some words of comfort for my local authorities and citizens in my area.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case for the amendment. Is he aware that the Minister for the Environment recently said that
      "under the previous Government … more and more burdens were placed on local authorities and allegedly funded from efficiency savings."
      452
      This is the important bit:
      "We"—
      that is the Government—
      "are abandoning that practice and taking the realistic view that if extra duties are imposed they should be reasonably funded. That is the Government's policy."—[Official Report, 14 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 125.]
      Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the Minister for the Environment made that statement to the House, there is no reason why the Government should not accept the amendment?
      Mr. Chope: I agree absolutely. The trouble with the Government is that they consistently say one thing and do another, and they use words ambiguously to give people a misleading impression. We are not talking about any additional costs to Government. All we are talking about is a fair distribution of the costs that are incurred by local authorities as a result of Government-imposed legislation and ending the two-tier system. Today the financial services ombudsman has had something to say about the two-tier system operating in the Halifax building society. The Government have been presiding over a multi-tier system for reimbursing local authorities for the costs of concessionary fares, which is totally unjust.
      It is not as though we are asking the earth. There is already a system in place to reimburse London authorities for the actual costs of concessionary fares, rather than the notional or pooled costs, so there is no reason why the Government could not introduce a system that reimbursed local authorities for the actual costs of the statutory concessionary fare scheme, rather than using the formulaic system of distribution which is so unjust.
      I had no quarrels with the old system, under which concessionary fares were regarded as a matter for local discretion. The local authority could decide how much money to spend on concessionary fares and what sort of scheme to operate. In so far as they were able to draw on resources in the environmental services block grant, they could do so.
      2 pm
      The Government changed the rules and there is now no option for local authorities but to comply with the new rigid and centrally imposed rules. It is right and proper that local authorities should be reimbursed accordingly. As I said at the outset, this gives the Government an opportunity to admit that they have made a mistake, that they are willing to learn from it, and that, from now on, they will reimburse all the local authority costs incurred as a result of the legislation. If they did so, it would enable councils such as Christchurch and East Dorset to impose much lower council tax increases next year than are currently in prospect.
      During yesterday's debate on the revenue support grant and the level of the finance settlement, the Minister for Local Government said that the Government were being generous to local authorities. Some of us were left with the impression that the Minister was more generous to some local authorities than to others. Today, the Under-Secretary has an opportunity to demonstrate by her actions and words that she believes in justice and equity for local authorities and that she accepts that it is unfair that some local authorities should benefit by more than

      453
      the costs they incur while others receive less than their costs. The amendment is a simple and equitable proposition and I hope that the Minister will accede to it.
      Mr. Henry Bellingham: I support the amendment and endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). It would be perverse in the extreme if the Government did not reimburse local authorities. As my hon. Friend said, some local authorities have had to impose inflation-busting council tax increases over the past few years. In my area of west Norfolk we have consistently had council tax increases of about 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. over the past five or six years.
      This is not just a problem for Norfolk county council. My local borough council, King's Lynn and West Norfolk, has not been getting a fair deal from the Government. Interestingly, the Labour leader of the local borough council explained in a letter to the local press the other day that the council tax in our area will have to go up by so much because the Government have not given Norfolk a fair enough deal. That is why it is vital that the amendment is supported and that the Government reimburse local authorities.
      Will the Minister look at the words of the Minister for the Environment, who said:
      "under the previous Government … more and more burdens were placed on local authorities and allegedly funded from efficiency savings. We are abandoning that practice and taking the realistic view that if extra duties are imposed they should be reasonably funded. That is the Government's policy."— [Official Report, 14 January 2002: Vol. 378, c. 125.]
      That is a good reason for the Under-Secretary to agree with what we are saying.
      I support the amendment, as do many of my constituents. My constituency is similar in many ways to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in that there are many elderly retired people, especially along the Norfolk coast in villages and towns such as Brancaster, the Burnhams and Hunstanton. Many of them are retired couples from places such as London where they have enjoyed concessionary fares, often amounting to 100 per cent. They are disappointed to receive only a 50 per cent. reduction in my area. If they find that this Bill does not benefit them in the way that is intended because local authorities will not be reimbursed, they will be very disappointed.
      Unfortunately, I say all that in the context of declining bus services—the picture throughout most rural counties. We all know that 15 or 20 years ago we saw double-decker buses trundling around country lanes with one or two people on board. Every village had a regular bus service. It is clear that those days could not continue, but unfortunately many bus companies have not shown enough imagination and have responded inadequately to the demands and requirements of local communities.
      In west Norfolk, communities have been cut off as a result of reductions in bus services. I am thinking in particular of two cases that have arisen since my return to the House, one of which involves the hamlet of Gayton Thorpe, where the bus service has been abandoned completely. Only last week, I received a letter from a constituent who lives in the village of Tilney All Saints,
      454
      which until recently enjoyed a reasonable bus service. Now, there are only two morning buses from Tilney All Saints to King's Lynn, and only one returning to the village in the evening, which leaves King's Lynn at 4.45 pm. The bus goes through the northern part of the village, but the constituent who wrote to me lives in the southern part. Her daughter attends the local College of West Anglia, where she is training to be a chef. On leaving the bus she has to walk more than half a mile, which is a long way for a student in the dark.
      The Government are attempting to do what all of us feel is the right thing, but if they fail completely to reimburse local authorities and penalise constituents such as mine through higher council tax, they will be making a big mistake. I hope that the Minister will look at our amendment sympathetically and respond to the detailed and technical points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, which I wholly endorse, and to some of my more general points.
      Chris Grayling: I begin by apologising to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister for arriving late for the start of this debate. Today has been rather frenetic because of the launch of the Select Committee report on the rail industry, but happily we will be discussing this afternoon another subject that is close to the hearts of me and my constituents.
      Members will know that the constituency of Epsom and Ewell lies just beyond the London boundary to the south. My constituents and Surrey county council—our local transport authority—face real problems in the provision of bus transportation, which will be exacerbated if the Bill is enacted and fails to deliver full reimbursement to authorities throughout the country. It was particularly disturbing to discover in Committee that, despite being pressed to do so, the Government were unable to give a clear, unequivocal and categorical commitment that they will reimburse every local authority for all the costs associated with changing the scheme under the Bill.
      I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to make such a commitment, because without it local authorities such as mine will have, in effect, two options—to cut other services or to increase council tax. That seems a wholly inappropriate burden to place on them at this time. In the case of Surrey county council, it is especially inappropriate, given the huge disparities in public support for Surrey and neighbouring London. Yesterday, the Minister kindly sent me a letter giving details on this issue. According to it, the Mayor is allocated £714 million a year for public transport, which will rise to just over £1 billion next year. In comparison, the sums allocated specifically to bus services in counties outside London are minuscule. Even wrapped together, all the transport budgets for all other authorities in the south-east will receive only £179 million for local transport projects in 2002–03.
      In other words, under the Mayor's leadership local authorities across the border in London have a sum to distribute for transport support that is more than five times greater than that allocated to the home counties. The consequences of that disparity are becoming all too clear in the provision of concessionary fare schemes and of more general bus services.

      455
      Most particularly, the disparity's consequences are evident in the loss of a number of operators running services across the boundaries into London. They have been driven out of business by competitors in London that benefit from the substantial subsidy available to them.
      The problem will get worse if the Minister goes ahead with the Bill as it stands. In effect, if the Government fail to deliver full reimbursement to local authorities for the cost of the scheme, more transport money will be taken away from authorities outside London. I believe that the Government should fulfil what I believe is their duty to reimburse, as local authorities outside London will be less able to deliver the support to bus services that their counterparts across the border in London can deliver.
      As a consequence, services will continue to lose out financially. Operators will find it more difficult to make money on routes, and will tend to walk away from the business. The people to lose out will not be the vast majority of my constituents who use cars, but the schoolchildren and pensioners who depend on the buses for their daily transportation. They can ill afford to see the buses disappear.
      It has been a matter of great concern to me that such a large disparity exists between the public support given to bus operators in London—and to local authorities there to enable them to support the operators—and the equivalent support given to counties just outside London. I hope that the Minister will not make the problem worse through an inappropriate application of the Bill.
      The failure fully to reimburse local authorities for the cost of the scheme would have consequences that go beyond the nature of the services provided. Also affected would be the ability of local authorities to deliver any sort of proper concessionary fare scheme.
      It is a cause of great grief to many of the elderly in the northern part of my constituency—those who live in places such as Stoneleigh, Worcester Park and Ewell—that their neighbours just across the boundary in London benefit from the free bus passes that are available to them under local authority schemes. Those local authorities are able to deliver those free bus passes because of the extra financial support that they receive.
      Surrey county council does not receive the financial support that would enable it to provide free bus passes. It has tried extremely hard to deliver a concessionary scheme that goes some way at least towards relieving the burden of costs faced by our older travellers. The council has been able to help a little financially, but my elderly constituents are only human. They look up the road—sometimes only a few hundred yards—and wonder why they cannot have a bus-pass scheme such as exists in Sutton or Kingston. The reason is that the money for such a scheme is not available.
      The Bill will make it more difficult still for my county council—and I suspect for many other authorities around the country—to introduce the schemes for bus passes and concessionary fares that benefit pensioners in higher-cost areas.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has my hon. Friend concluded that there is a particular irony about the problem, in that the further that one gets away from London and the other major metropolitan areas, the worse the bus service tends to be? If the amendment is rejected, the effect will be that local authorities are likely to cut back on discretionary
      456
      spending on bus services. That will further reduce the number of services, especially in areas such as that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), and in my area of the Cotswolds?
      Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is right. Many services depend absolutely on local authority support to keep going. Such services are nowhere near the principle routes. They deliver more a social service than a commercial one, and they benefit from the support of local authorities. If local authorities get less money, there will be fewer of those services. That has to be a matter of great concern for hon. Members considering the Bill.
      2.15 pm
      Quite rightly, the Government have an aspiration to see concessionary fare schemes grow. Many parts of the country have nothing like the level of such schemes that are available in London. Many of the authorities in those areas would like to do more. My authority's aspiration is, at the very least, to charge pensioners a 50p flat fare for buses.
      However, if the additional costs of concessionary schemes are placed, in whole or in part, on local authorities, it will be more difficult for those authorities to introduce improved schemes. Moreover, although no one could argue with the aims of the Bill, the irony is that it will make it more expensive for local authorities to introduce expanded schemes in the future. By definition, they will have to find budgets to cover people aged between 60 and 65, as well as those aged over 65. As a result, it is less likely that local authorities will be able to afford new schemes in the future.
      I hope that the Minister will give the matter careful thought, and that she will consider the consequences of failing to fund local authorities in full. I hope that she will give us this afternoon a commitment to providing full funding, and that she will think about those areas in the country that do not have the sort of schemes that would be desirable. The Minister must look at the potential extra costs that will arise, as a result of the Bill, if local authorities try to improve their schemes. Moreover, I hope that the Minister, when she looks at her Department's financial planning for the future, will encourage local authorities to go ahead with fare schemes and, where appropriate, give them the financial support that they need.
      In conclusion, I welcome the Bill very much, and I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on the amendment. I hope that the Minister will accept it. If she does not, I hope that she will at least accept the principle behind it, and give our local authorities the support that they undoubtedly need to implement the Bill.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) introduced the amendment. He clearly acknowledged that the form of words used is something of a device and that the intention behind the amendment is better expressed in new clause 1. I shall not talk about the new clause, but I will deal

      457
      with some of the different ways to tackle the financial arrangements, as I think that that is the subject that most worries Opposition Members.
      The question of funding has been a recurring theme in debates on this Bill in this House, in the other place and in Committee. I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) by telling him that I do not agree with his interpretation of what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport said. If I do not use the same words as my right hon. Friend, it is only because I cannot be as eloquent.
      I appreciate the concerns about funding, and about the need to get the formula right. I shall therefore go through some of the arguments explaining why the Government chose the approach contained in the Bill.
      The amendment would add another stage to the system of funds distribution. Given that the hon. Member for Cotswold admitted that it would also require an additional round of consultation, it would be inconceivable for us to get the scheme up and running even in time for the next financial year. I urge Opposition Members to think hard about that, especially as amendment No. 3 deals with commencement. In addition, the amendment could undermine the method of distribution of Government support for the expenditure of local authorities.
      Before I move on to some of the other issues, I shall deal with the concerns raised by hon. Members, and make some general comments. The hon. Member for Christchurch talked about the new burdens principle and the discussions that took place in Committee. In adopting the new burdens and revenue support grant approach, the Government are utilising the usual channels for local authority financial arrangements. As a result, the scheme will be introduced in a manner that, if not super fast, is speedy and orderly. The Government's approach also allows for proper discussion of the distributive mechanism through the local government channels. That is important because of the two big issues in local government funding—the size of the cake and how it is shared out. There must be discussions with the local government associations about both issues, particularly the latter.
      Mr. Chope: What system could be fairer than one which reimburses local authorities, on an individual basis, for the costs that they have incurred as a result of the legislation?
      Ms Keeble: I was going to come to that point later. That would mean a ring-fenced grant, which one of the amendments suggests, but it would lead to delay. In contrast, the Bill provides for an orderly and fair distribution of the total costs between local authorities.
      It is true that some time ago concerns were raised by local authorities about the fairness of the distribution. I understand that the discussions between officials and the local government associations have been successful and that the margins that were talked about, which were in multiples of a million, have been whittled down to a small amount.
      The hon. Member for Christchurch, along with other Conservative Members, argues that his local authorities are losing out. All Members think that their local authority is losing out. In fact, the way in which the mechanism
      458
      works means that local authorities that already have more generous concessionary fare schemes in place, such as Merseyside, Reading and the West Midlands, are more likely to be under pressure than the local authorities that started from scratch or from a lower base in introducing concessionary fare schemes. I do not accept that the hon. Gentleman's authorities have necessarily lost out, nor those of his hon. Friends. In checking with officials, they do not seem to have raised that concern with my Department. Therefore, I do not think that this system, which is the normal one, discriminates against the hon. Gentleman's local authorities.
      Mr. Chope: Does the Minister accept that the two local authorities in my constituency have incurred additional costs as a result of her legislation of £250,000 a year and have got back, between them, £20,000 a year? Which local authorities have been getting the extra £230,000 that should be going to Christchurch and East Dorset? Why is that money going to the West Midlands and Merseyside which are already over-resourced?
      Ms Keeble: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. Local authorities which are the most likely to find that they have unmet costs as a result of this mechanism have, in the past, had more generous concessionary fare schemes in place. The total cost of the new burdens are put into a general kitty and then carved up. Councils which have in the past had more generous schemes will have higher new burdens under the Bill. Authorities such as the West Midlands and Reading, rather than getting more money out of the scheme, are most likely to be under pressure.
      Chris Grayling rose—
      Ms Keeble: I should like to continue, because I will come on to the concerns of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I should also like to deal with the concerns of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) about bus transport in rural areas, particularly for pensioners. He said that pensioners moving out of London would lose the valuable benefit of the free bus pass which London local authorities have had in place for many years. They kept the scheme going even when they were under acute financial pressure under the last Conservative Government. The decision to keep the free bus pass was made by Conservative and Labour councils in the teeth of considerable opposition. It was a recognition of local needs, and that is how local government should work.
      We have recognised the problems of people in rural areas who need bus transport and have provided front-end support for them in the form of the rural bus challenge and a big increase in the subsidy for rural buses. We had the last round of the rural bus challenge last Friday. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's local authority, although it might not have been his constituency, benefited from that challenge.
      Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger rose—
      Ms Keeble: I should like to finish this point about rural buses. We recognise that people in rural areas do not just want to go short distances. That is why we are looking at

      459
      a fuel duty rebate for coaches in return for some concessionary fares. That will be an important step and will meet particular needs.
      The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has raised his concerns a number of times. I have heard the exposition at least twice. His particular concern is that because his constituency is just over the border of London, people feel more strongly about not getting the free bus pass. Local authorities need to look at close working across local government boundaries. That is an issue right across the country. Local authorities have the discretion to make extra provision, as the authorities in London did, for the fact that people in their area may want to travel longer distances or go into London.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned schoolchildren. There is support for children in particular circumstances, depending on how far away from school they live and how old they are.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister seems to be dismissing the arguments of Conservative Members as trivial. The Local Government Association briefing says:
      "As well as the aggregate financial consequences of the Bill, authorities individually will be affected to varying extents depending on the type of scheme or schemes currently offered locally … the imposition of this specific new burden with its widely varying local consequences requires an innovative look at whether there can be transitional measures to ease the particular problems which some authorities may face."
      As my hon. Friends are urging me to consider dividing the House on this matter, can the Minister assure us that if she does not accept the amendment, she will at least continue to investigate the problem to see whether there are any mechanisms for every local authority to be reimbursed for the actual costs that they incur?
      Ms Keeble: I am not dismissing the concerns that are raised. I recognise that concessionary fares are extremely important to the public and that the issue of finance is of great concern to local authorities. I am simply pointing out that some of the issues raised by Conservative Members are about non-metropolitan, rural areas and that other support is being provided for people in those areas. The concessionary fare scheme is not the last word as regards what we are doing to support bus travel. We are considering the organisation of the financing. There has been careful discussion in the local government associations—the proper way to do it—and what started out as wide variations have narrowed to quite a small sum. I am sure that those discussions will continue. By the time that the scheme comes into operation in April 2003, I am sure that local councils will feel satisfied that they are being properly reimbursed.
      2.30 pm
      The local authorities mentioned by Opposition Members did not raise their concerns with the Department. If those authorities provide the information, I will ensure that officials take a careful look at it.
      Chris Grayling: I am sorry but the Minister has already heard my explanation two or three times. I can assure her that she and her colleagues will hear it many more times in the House and other places. She has made various references to different impacts on different
      460
      authorities, but is she saying that some authorities will end up paying part of the costs of the scheme out of their current budgets, rather than new budgets?
      Ms Keeble: I am sorry if I have not been clear. On the way in which the funding mechanisms work, I have been saying that we have gone through the normal channels and procedures, if for no other reason than we do not want to delay the introduction of the scheme. We want it in place by 2003.
      We have recognised the new burdens principle, which is that if a new burden is placed on local authorities it has to be met. That applies to the total cost of the scheme, which we estimate to be about £50 million. That will be the new burden to be imposed on local authorities as a result of the scheme. The issue is how that amount will be divided up among the local authorities. It is to be done on a per capita basis. Local authorities would receive funding according to the size of their population. I should have thought that that deals with the concerns about the relative funding for London and Surrey. Clearly, the local authorities are discussing exactly how the mechanism should work to ensure that it is as fair to them as possible. The authorities have to discuss that among themselves.
      Referring back to what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport said, we would expect the pressures to be on the margins. The authorities that are most likely to experience those financial pressures are those that historically have had the most generous concessionary fare schemes. I do not want to go into all the detail again, as I shall sound like a gramophone record if I do.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister has been generous in giving way. She stated that the effects of the Bill will be felt only at the margins. If she genuinely believes that—the Opposition think that it will be a bit more than at the margins—she is implicitly admitting that the revenue cost is small, if it is a cost at all. Therefore, why will she not consider implementing the amendment?
      Ms Keeble: Although I am not reading the words used by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, the form of words that I am using is pretty much same when I say that the pressures will be felt at the margins. The formula for cutting up the cake between the local authorities—there are more than 300 of them in England, which is why it is a substantial undertaking—is down to the discussions with those authorities. It appears that those discussions have gone well and that the areas of conflict are now very small.
      As the hon. Gentleman rightly said the amendment is a peg. It refers to a different Bill and a completely different provision. The ring-fencing process that concerns him is not in the amendment. Furthermore, it would result in major delays, which would mean that we would be unlikely to get the scheme up and running by 2003. The devolved Administrations have already got such schemes up and running, so we would be lagging far behind. I shall now move on, as we have discussed that issue several times and have more or less exhausted the arguments.

      461
      At present, most Government grant to local authorities is paid by way of general grant. It is for local authorities to spend the money in the way that they consider appropriate, based on their judgment of local needs and circumstances and their overall financial priorities.
      Mr. Chope: The Minister said that the grant is allocated to local authorities so that they can decide how to spend it. Concessionary travel comes into a different category, however, as the Government have decided, for their own political benefit, to announce a statutory scheme and impose legislation on local authorities. The Government have also announced the principle of burdens. Will the Minister explain how it can be fair to impose an additional burden of £250,000 on two small local authorities in Dorset, and to reimburse them with only £20,000?
      Ms Keeble: I have said that we have recognised the new burdens principle. The extra funding is on that basis. The hon. Gentleman is arguing for a ring-fenced grant. In general, local authorities rightly say that they want more discretion as to how they spend their money. As the funding is part of general funding, local authorities are free to top up their schemes and to use part of their general grant to do so. There is no contradiction.
      The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Conservative party wants a special grant; it does not want the money to be part of the general grant. As I have said several times, if it were part of a special grant, further consultation would be required and the introduction of the scheme would be delayed until after 2003. We believe that local authorities should be responsible for their spending and taxation decisions and be accountable to their local communities for them.
      We all recognise that reimbursing local authorities at the current cost of concessionary fares is expensive, but we none the less believe that the system is in balance, not least because we have received few complaints from authorities about it. I give this undertaking to the hon. Members for Cotswold and for Christchurch: if the information about the local authorities mentioned is provided, we will certainly consider it carefully.
      In England alone, we reimburse local authorities to the tune of £490 million a year. This legislation will increase that amount by about £50 million. We are working with local authority associations to finalise the figures so that the local government settlement will cover in total the cost of the extension of the travel concession to men aged 60 to 65.
      As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport explained at some length in Committee—including in a lengthy discussion of the new burdens principle—the basis for distributing the concessionary fares funding is in line with other transfers to local government of this size. We really do not think that there is a case for the separation of that element of the revenue support grant, especially in comparison with other aspects of expenditure. We do not think that element should be ring fenced by a special grant mechanism.
      More generally, as I have said several times, we want to ensure that the system of distributing grant is as fair as possible. We are working to create a local government
      462
      finance system that distributes grant fairly and effectively and which gives councils greater financial autonomy to help them better to meet the needs of their local communities. We shall be working with local government as a whole to build consensus as far as possible.
      We have discussed funding at great length. I completely understand the concern of Opposition Members to ensure that their constituents receive the benefit of concessionary fares and also that their local authorities are properly reimbursed or compensated. We believe that the system is fair and efficient and that it will facilitate the orderly and expeditious introduction of this very, very important concession. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Cotswold will withdraw his amendment so as not to delay the scheme; and that we can get the measure through and ensure that men aged between 60 and 65 receive the benefits of the Bill.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The one thing on which the House can agree is that the Bill is important and that we want it on the statute book as soon as possible.
      The Minister uses an interesting device to try to reject the amendment—threatening us that it could delay the implementation of the measure. She has certainly anticipated that she will not accept our amendment so that she can bring forward the implementation of the measure. That is a new parliamentary device and we may be breaking new ground. However, I hope that the Minister will keep an open mind as to the amendments that we have not yet debated.
      I remind the Minister of the genesis of the Bill. As long ago as 10 October 1997, Michael Matthews took his case to the European Court. The Court hearing was on 28 November 2000, and on 17 February 2001 the Deputy Prime Minister announced that primary legislation would be introduced to amend the law so as to equalise at 60 the age at which men and women qualified for travel concessions.
      The Government have had a huge amount of time to put the Bill on to the statute book, so there is no excuse for them not to accept our relatively straightforward and wholly fair amendment. Surely, if a council is out of pocket due to the obligations imposed on it by the Government, it should be reimbursed by the Government.
      Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I make one more point?
      The Minister mentioned the system of fair burdens. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) referred to the remarks of the Minister for the Environment and I repeat the Minister's words. He said:
      "We are abandoning that practice and taking the realistic view that if extra duties are imposed they should be reasonably funded."—[Official Report, 14 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 125.]
      The Opposition take the view that if the Government impose any duties on local government, they should be fully funded. If the Government impose duties, the Government should fund them.

      463
      I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—[Interruption.] He no longer wants to intervene so I must have dealt with the point that he wanted to make.
      Mr. Foster: Very effectively.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I may be damned with faint praise later, so I shall keep going while I am ahead.
      Mr. Chope: Will my hon. Friend address the fallacy in the Minister's argument that the authorities under the greatest financial pressure were those with the most generous schemes? Surely, the authorities that did not have generous schemes were under financial pressure—that is why their schemes were not generous. They wanted the money that would flow from the Government under the new system to enable them to introduce more generous schemes.
      2.45 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister's argument was fallacious in that respect.
      Ms Keeble: We have just heard a different version of what I said. I said that those local authorities that had traditionally had the most generous concessionary fares schemes were those that would be the most likely to be under financial pressure as a result of the Government using this formula. Those were not the authorities represented by Conservative Members—they were places such as Merseyside and the west midlands.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Until I read the record, I shall not be entirely sure whether the Minister has repeated what she said before or whether she is saying something slightly different. The argument still sounds fallacious, so I shall need to examine the record carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is right: the smaller rural authorities are likely to be most disadvantaged by the provisions of the Bill.
      We have held a long debate on the subject and we need to move on. The Opposition remain dissatisfied that the Government are introducing extra burdens for local authorities—especially small authorities. Because of that and because the Minister has not wholly convinced us that the Bill would be fair, we shall seek to divide the House so that our local authorities can see that we are protecting their interests to the full.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 262.

      Division No. 150]

      [2.46 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Allan, Richard

      Blunt, Crispin

      Amess, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Ancram Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Brady, Graham

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Brake Tom

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Brazier, Julian

      Barker, Gregory

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Baron, John

      Burstow, Paul

      Barrett, John

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      464

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      (NE Fife)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Carmichael, Alistair

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Cash, William

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Maples, John

      Chope, Christopher

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Clappison, James

      Moore, Michael

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Paterson, Owen

      Cotter, Brian

      Pickles, Eric

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Prisk, Mark

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Randall, John

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Rendel, David

      Doughty, Sue

      Robathan, Andrew

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Right, Howard

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Sanders, Adrian

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Simmonds, Mark

      Francois, Mark

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

      Gale Roger

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Garnier, Edward

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gibb, Nick

      Spring, Richard

      Gidley, Sandra

      Stunell, Andrew

      Swire, Hugo

      Goodman, Paul

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Grayling, Chris

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Greenway, John

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Tredinnick, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Hayes, John

      Tyler, Paul

      Heald, Oliver

      Viggers, Peter

      Hendry, Charles

      Watkinson, Angela

      Hermon, Lady

      Whittingdale, John

      Hoban, Mark

      Wiggin, Bill

      Holmes, Paul

      Wilkinson, John

      Horam, John

      Willetts, David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Willis, Phil

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Wilshire, David

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lamb, Norman

      Mr. Peter Luff and Mr. Peter Atkinson.

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Allen, Graham

      Brennan, Kevin

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Atkins, Charlotte

      (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Austin, John

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Browne, Desmond

      Baird, Vera.

      Bryant, Chris

      Barnes, Harry

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Barron, Kevin

      Burden, Richard

      Battle, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Bayley, Hugh

      Burnham, Andy

      Benn, Hilary

      Cairns, David

      Bennett, Andrew

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Best, Harold

      Casale, Roger

      Betts, Clive

      Cawsey, Ian

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Challen, Colin

      465

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Howells, Dr Kim

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Clelland, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Coaker, Vernon.

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Coleman, Iain

      Jamieson, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cooper, Yvette

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Corston, Jean

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cranston, Ross

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Crausby, David

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Joyce, Eric

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Kemp, Fraser

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Davidson, Ian

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Dawson, Hilton

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Dobbin, Jim

      Lammy, David

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Laxton, Bob

      Doran, Frank

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Dowd, Jim

      Lepper, David

      Drew, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Levitt, Tom

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Edwards, Huw

      Linton, Martin

      Ennis, Jeff

      Lloyd, Tony

      Etherington, Bill

      Lucas, Ian

      Farrelly, Paul

      Luke, Iain

      Fisher, Mark

      Lyons, John

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      McCabe, Stephen

      Flint, Caroline

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Flynn, Paul

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Follett, Barbara

      MacDougall, John

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McKechin, Ann

      Foulkes, George

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Galloway, George

      McNulty, Tony

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      MacShane, Denis

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McWalter, Tony

      Gilroy, Linda

      McWilliam, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Grogan, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Meale, Alan

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Merron, Gillian

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Miliband, David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Miller, Andrew

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mole, Chris

      Heppell, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hesford, Stephen

      Moran, Margaret

      Heyes, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Hill, Keith

      Mudie, George

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Hope, Phil

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      466

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Norris, Dan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Soley, Clive

      O'Hara, Edward

      Southworth, Helen

      Organ, Diana

      Squire, Rachel

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Owen, Albert

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pearson, Ian

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Perham, Linda

      Stringer, Graham

      Picking, Anne

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pickthall, Colin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pike, Peter

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pond, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pope, Greg

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Todd, Mark

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Truswell, Paul

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Rammell, Bill

      Tynan, Bill

      Rapson, Syd

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Watson, Tom

      Robertson, John

      Watts, David

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      White, Brian

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Ross, Ernie

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Roy, Frank

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      (Swansea W)

      Ryan, Joan

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Salter, Martin

      Wills, Michael

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Winnick, David

      Sawford, Phil

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Worthington, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Simon, Siôn

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Mr. Nick Ainger.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 21, at end insert—
      '(4A) Subsections (1) to (4) above shall not affect the operation of any travel concession scheme more generous than that provided by section 145(1) (mandatory concessions outside Greater London) of the Transport Act 2000 and by section 242 (requirements as to scope of concessions which must be given if free travel scheme is not to have effect) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 as amended by section 151(12) (concessions inside Greater London) of the Transport Act 2000.'.
      The amendment follows on logically from the important discussion that we have just had about the cost of the Government's proposals. The Liberal Democrats welcome the broad thrust of the Bill and, like the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), we wish it good speed and a speedy implementation. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am conscious, however, that action on this issue should, and could, have been taken sooner. Indeed, during the passage of the Bill that became the Transport Act 2000, I moved amendments that would have had exactly the same effect that this Bill is intended to have. In other words, the matter could have been done and dusted more than two years ago, and it is a great pity that we are still here debating it.

      467
      3 pm
      I want to express my gratitude to the Minister because in speaking to the previous amendment she almost made my case for me, and in a moment I shall quote her remarks in support of this amendment. When the hon. Member for Cotswold spoke to the previous amendment, he referred also to a new clause that was related to it but had not been selected. For ease of understanding, I shall follow the hon. Gentleman's sensible precedent, because I tabled new clause 2 as well as amendment No. 4, and the new clause succinctly expresses the intention of the amendment. It states:
      "It is hereby declared that nothing in this Act shall inhibit the operation of any existing travel concession scheme, whether statutory or otherwise."
      I tabled amendment No. 4, which would have the same effect as those words, to be helpful to none other than Lord Falconer. In the debate in the other place, he said that
      "it is regrettable if local authorities have taken the decision to offer their elderly and disabled people less generous schemes as a result of a statutory minimum requirement."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2001; Vol. 627, c. 743.]
      The noble Lord would, rightly, be concerned if, as a result of the introduction of the minimum requirement and the further change to it now being imposed by the Bill, local authorities reduced the quality of existing non-mandatory provision.
      If the money provided by the Government to recompense local authorities in the manner described by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and others is not sufficient, they may have little choice but to make up that deficit by removing money from more generous schemes already in existence. During our discussion in Committee, hon. Members gave examples of schemes that are already under threat and considerable concern was expressed on both sides of the Committee about the possible demise of more generous schemes. It was because of those concerns that Lord Falconer made his remarks in the other place.
      As I said, the Minister has made it abundantly clear that she, too, is concerned about that possibility. She also made it clear, however, that there is uncertainty even as to the level of funding that the Government will have to provide to meet their existing promise. The debate on the previous amendment dealt with the rights and wrongs of the method of dividing up the pot, but there is still a debate to be had about whether the pot itself is large enough.
      In the earlier debate, the Minister said that it was her understanding that debates between her officials and the Local Government Association about the funding that might be required were so successful that the difference between them had been whittled down from millions of pounds to a small amount. She later told us that the additional burdens imposed as a result of the Bill would be round about £50 million. That is worrying. We were told earlier that the figure might be £54 million and that discussions with the Department continue. I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate she will tell the House the precise amount that the Government believe is necessary collectively to compensate local authorities for the imposition of the new burdens.
      In response to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cotswold, who was ably supported by several
      468
      of his hon. Friends, the Minister clearly said that the local authorities who already provide generous concessionary schemes are
      "more likely to be under pressure".
      When the hon. Member for Christchurch suggested that she had said something rather different, she asserted that such authorities are
      "most likely to be under pressure."
      My concern in speaking to this amendment relates to those authorities and others.
      Ms Keeble: My reference to authorities being under pressure related to the division of the cake, not the size of it, and to the previous amendment.
      Mr. Foster: The Minister made that absolutely clear earlier, and I entirely accept that we are now discussing the size of the cake rather than how it is divided up. As I said, I am concerned that the cake may not be big enough fully to recompense councils collectively, and that may lead to some councils dropping more generous schemes. I come now to the point that the mechanism for distributing the cake will, according to the Minister herself, have an impact on a number of local authorities who already have more generous schemes.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: In my opening remarks on the previous amendment, I alluded to concerns about the total cost of the Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the LGA briefing prepared for Members of Parliament. It states:
      "The LGA is still in discussion with the DTLR about the actual level of additional costs to local authorities for providing the statutory minimum scheme set out in TA2000"—
      the Transport Act 2000—
      "for which the Association feels the Department may have under-estimated",
      even with the increase in aggregate revenue support grant provision of £54 million in England, an increase over its initial assessment of £47 million. The Minister and the DTLR are having continually to raise their estimate of the Bill's costs and no doubt will continue to do so.
      Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he reminds us that there are two stages to the process. First, the Transport Act sensibly introduced a statutory minimum requirement, which placed burdens on local authorities. As he said, discussions continue as to whether local authorities are being properly recompensed by the Government for those burdens. Secondly, we have the Bill, which could have been incorporated in the Act but was not. It will place an additional burden on local authorities, and discussions continue about the collective cost of that to local authorities who run such schemes.
      I hope that the Minister will at least make it clear to the House where we stand with the negotiations on the costs that specifically relate to the Bill, but if she can provide any additional information about continuing discussions on the costs of the original legislative requirement under the Transport Act 2000, I am sure that the House will be pleased to receive it. However, as I have said, the problem is not only that the cake may not be enough, but that the method of dividing the cake may put pressure on certain local authorities that already operate generous concessionary schemes above the

      469
      statutory minimum. Lord Falconer has made it clear in another place that he does not want such schemes to be removed.
      The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that we state clearly in the Bill that nothing will reduce the quality of existing services, whether mandatory or non-mandatory. The Minister referred to several places where that may be the case. She said that Merseyside, the west midlands and Reading were most likely to be put under pressure as a result of the Government's proposals. There will also be additional pressures in London. Reference has been made already to the generous freedom pass scheme that operates in London, and there is much discussion about the operation of that scheme. I have recently corresponded with organisations that are genuinely concerned that, in an attempt to make eligibility for the freedom pass scheme uniform throughout London, several local authorities are tightening up the criteria so that some people, especially disabled people, are losing out.
      The London scheme is more generous than the legislative statutory minimum requirement, so a larger number of men in the 60 to 65 age group will benefit from it and an additional cost will have to be met to pay for those people who have been added to the more generous scheme. Does the Minister genuinely believe that the additional costs in London, the west midlands, Merseyside, Reading and many other parts of the country have been taken into account in the sum that will be provided?
      The purpose of the amendment is clear: to ensure that nothing done as a result of the Bill will in any way reduce the ability of local authorities to provide those existing schemes that are more generous than the legislation requires them to provide. If the Government disagree to the amendment so that the current schemes in the areas to which I refer can be whittled away—that has sadly already happened in several areas—they will reap a poor reward for their actions. I hope therefore that the Minister will support the amendment.
      Ms Keeble: I appreciate all the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I do not want to have a very long discussion about the financial arrangements, especially as we have discussed them exhaustively in Committee. I suspect that I would simply end up saying what I have said previously, and we would go round the houses again. The financial figures that I have cited are those that I have been given most recently, so they cover the current state of play. I give an undertaking to ensure that hon. Members are properly notified of any further developments.
      3.15 pm
      Mr. Foster: The Minister gave from the Dispatch Box a figure of about £50 million, but the figure that she and her colleagues have cited most frequently is £54 million. For the sake of clarity, will she confirm that that is the current figure, agreed by her departmental officials and the LGA? Given that she said that there was a small discrepancy, can she tell us what it is?
      Ms Keeble: I too have heard the £54 million figure. The figure that I have been given most recently by
      470
      officials is £50 million. I have previously given an approximation of the remaining difference, which is down from the several millions that it was previously. I do not want to go back around that or to mislead anyone about the continuing discussions. It would probably be more helpful if we made absolutely sure that hon. Members received exactly the right figures, and I undertake to write to hon. Members about them when we know whether those discussions have produced any further results.
      In answer to the question about the different local authorities, I said that they were the ones most likely to be under pressure. The point of the negotiations and discussions that are taking place is to ensure that they are not under pressure and that we reach the right the final formula. At the end of the day, the Bill will greatly benefit many people. Overwhelmingly, that will be its impact, and I have no doubt that the concessions that will be extended to 64-year-old men will be very welcome indeed. Of course, we have to ensure that the financial details are right, but we would be unwise to lose sight of the fact that this will be an overwhelmingly popular and practical measure that will produce real improvements for a substantial number of people.
      I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses about ensuring that there is an equalising up, not an equalising down. I shall put things simply before going through my formal notes so that they are on the record. Under the Bill, local authorities will have to do for men what they are doing for women of the same age. If women get free bus passes, so must men. That is the Bill's effect; this is not a discretionary issue. If the local authority runs a half-fare scheme, men will pay half fares. Whatever scheme operates, it must be extended to men aged 60 to 64.
      Of course, local authorities can introduce new schemes if they decide to do so at some stage in the future. Indeed, that is the point of local government, as the hon. Gentleman well knows; the Liberal Democrat party is totally in favour of local discretion. All the evidence shows that when people are given concessionary public transport, the pressure is to increase the concessions, not to reduce them. All the discussions about concessionary bus passes—for example, those in the west midlands and Greater Manchester—clearly show the enormous value that is placed on those facilities.
      Mr. Foster: There is no disagreement in the Chamber about the enormous benefits that the Bill will produce. May I ask the Minister to turn to the specifics of the issue? For example, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said that his local authority's aspiration was to provide a flat-rate 50p travel scheme for people over the age of 60. If his local authority already had in place such a scheme, the Bill's introduction will result in a significant additional cost to that authority for providing a flat-rate scheme for a much larger group of people—men between the ages of 60 and 65—than in a neighbouring authority that was only providing the statutory minimum.
      My question to the Minister is simple: will she ensure, by whatever means—let us not argue about the methodology—that that mythical local authority will not lose out and be forced to cut its more generous concessionary scheme?
      Ms Keeble: I do not want to return to the finance debate, as we have had that discussion several times and

      471
      I would end up saying the same thing as was said in Committee. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) was talking about aspirations, although I was not sure whether he was talking about what is in place. I accept that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) might have liked the debate to be the other way round.
      This short Bill, apart from bringing enormous benefits to an important section of society, will make sure that men aged 60 to 64 receive the same benefits as women in that age group. We have undertaken to finance any new burdens that that imposes on local authorities—we have had that debate—but it will not be possible to provide men aged 60 to 64 with different benefits from those provided to women. If, at a future stage, local authorities wish to change their concessionary fares scheme, they may do so.
      I have dealt with the arguments about the political realities, rather than the financial realities, of taking such a decision. That has been clearly demonstrated by the concerns that have been raised, much more in the debate about the original concessionary fares schemes than in this debate. We are aware of the concerns that have been expressed in the west midlands and Greater Manchester, and of the reality of what happened subsequently. As I understand it, in all areas, the levelling was up, not down, once the mandatory scheme was introduced.
      Chris Grayling: I appreciate that the hon. Lady feels pressed on this point, but the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has raised an important issue. Will any local authority be forced, as a result of the changes, to reduce the concessionary fares scheme that it provides for its local people, or to divert money away from other services to fulfil the terms of the Bill—yes or no?
      Ms Keeble: That point came under the debate that we have just had. The Government have recognised the new burdens, we have sized and cut up the cake and made it as fair as possible.
      Mr. Phil Woolas: And put cream on it.
      Ms Keeble: Yes, and a cherry on top, too. That is the point that we have reached.
      The amendment is about making sure that schemes are not reduced as a result of the Bill. The Bill specifically says that, if a scheme is in place, it must be extended to men aged 60 to 64. If a free pass scheme is in place, those men must have free travel, as, of course, the pass must be free. If a 50 per cent. fare scheme is in place, that must be extended to men aged 60 to 64. That is what is being financed, and that will be the effect of the scheme. I have explained that repeatedly and, I hope, as clearly as possible. I shall now make progress.
      At the risk of going over the same ground, the Bill will extend all existing schemes to men from age 60. Therefore, as I said, if the local authority offers a statutory minimum of a half fare with a local free bus pass—they cannot be charged for the pass—that must be offered to men aged 60 to 64 once the Bill comes into effect, which should be in April next year. Similarly, in areas where schemes that are more generous than the statutory minimum are offered, those schemes should also be extended. The Bill will therefore extend rather than reduce the existing schemes.
      472
      It is vital that we do not fetter the discretion of local authorities to operate the concessionary fare schemes that they consider best meet the needs of their areas. We do not expect local authorities to use the Bill as a reason to reduce the scope of their current schemes. We are confident that the funding that will be provided through the new burdens procedure will compensate local authorities for extending their schemes to men aged 60 to 64. We are keen to retain local democracy, and we do not want the Bill to reduce the discretion afforded to local authorities on the matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath would support that. It is down to local authorities to decide, in the light of local circumstances, what type of scheme they want to operate.
      Mr. Foster: The Minister seeks to reassure us that everything that the Government intend to do will ensure that the Bill does not result in a reduction of the existing, more generous, schemes. Will she add to her reassurance by providing some of the information that must be available to her? Her noble Friend Lord Falconer said in another place:
      "We are presently undertaking a survey to measure the effects of the implementation of the statutory minimum requirement. The survey is one of a series undertaken whenever there are significant changes to the concessionary travel regime. The results of the survey, which should be available early next year, will identify whether there is a problem of concessions having been reduced or whether there are just a couple of isolated examples."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2001; Vol. 627, c. 743–44.]
      Will the Minister tell us the result of that investigation?
      Ms Keeble: We do not have the results of that investigation yet. There has been discussion of the impact on some schemes, and I have mentioned them. The matter has also been discussed in Committee and probably on Second Reading, too. In most instances, the matter has been resolved by the original schemes being reinstated. That is largely because of the popularity of concessionary fares. As soon as we get the results of the survey, I am sure that they will be made available to hon. Members, as they will be very important.
      I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. They have been raised in correspondence by a number of hon. Members, and there has been a lot of discussion about them. I assure him that nothing in the Bill will cause any existing scheme to be reduced in scope or otherwise curtailed. With those assurances, I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Foster: The Minister provides warm words of encouragement, but unfortunately she cannot yet provide evidence from the survey that she acknowledges is being carried out as to whether similar assurances were given in respect of the introduction of the earlier statutory minimum requirement, and whether its introduction led to such reductions. I note with interest that some schemes, as she rightly said, were referred to in Committee—for example, the west midlands scheme, which, although it was going to be removed, has now been reinstated. She explained that it was reinstated because of the popularity of the scheme, and one can well imagine that local councillors in those areas were put under enormous pressure. However, she did not say that the schemes were reinstated as a result of Government assurances that

      473
      additional money to meet the additional cost would be made available; they were reinstated merely because of the political pressure placed on councils in the area.
      Ms Keeble: I believe that those schemes were resolved in such a way. I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Foster: So the Minister is agreeing that the resolution of the problem was not a result of Government intervention.
      The point that I have sought to make throughout is that it would be far better if the Government made it absolutely clear that they will introduce systems within the Bill's purview to ensure that the problems that we have discussed do not occur again. The Minister has said in warm words that it is not the Government's intention that such problems will occur, and that they are working very hard to ensure that they will not. I promise to look closely at the matter over the weeks and months to come, but with that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISION
      3.30 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 5, leave out from "on" to end of line 7 and insert—
      'the day six months after Royal Assent has been signified to the Act.'.
      The amendment's basic purpose is to ensure that the Government enact the provisions as soon as reasonably practicable. Since the Minister used the interesting parliamentary device of saying that she could not accept amendment No. 2 because it would delay implementation of the Act, I had anticipated that she would similarly turn down this amendment. I hope that I have anticipated her wrongly, because I am certain that all the men out there aged between 60 and 64 will be looking carefully at this debate to see when they are likely to be able to qualify for concessionary fares. Indeed, no less a person than the Speaker's Secretary made representations to me earlier today, saying that he hoped that the Bill would be on the statue book as soon as possible.
      Having rejected amendment No. 2 because it will be simpler to operate the provisions under the standard spending assessment, the Minister is on much weaker ground in rejecting this amendment, as there is now less reason still why the Government cannot enact the provisions sooner rather than later.
      The Minister said that she intended that the Act would come into effect on 1 April 2003. I am reliably informed by the Clerks that, as the Bill has completed all its House of Lords stages, theoretically there is no reason why it should not come into operation in a matter of days.
      Mr. Woolas: Tomorrow.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Government Whip, who one would not normally anticipate saying anything, has just made an interesting comment. He has just said, "A month."
      Mr. Woolas: Tomorrow.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: All right, tomorrow.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I do not want to encourage sedentary comments, and I hope that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will not provoke them.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) made a helpful, illuminating comment, showing that if the Government moved with great speed, they could enact the Bill very quickly indeed. However, let us be generous and allow enough time for the parliamentary procedure to proceed at an orderly pace and assume that the Bill could be on the statute book by 1 March. Under our amendment, the provisions would then be brought into effect on 1 September—a full seven months earlier than the Government intend. The 1 million men who are likely to benefit from the provisions would warmly and heartily welcome that. I therefore urge the Minister to consider the amendment seriously.
      Chris Grayling: Has my hon. Friend considered the perhaps mischievous possibility—I am sure that it is not really a possibility—that those men will have to wait an extra year because it is less convenient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spend the money in the next financial year?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sure that there are expenditure implications, and that might be one of them. I hope that it is not, because Mr. Matthews first took his case to the European Court as long ago as 10 October 1997, so the Government have had four years' warning that they would be likely to lose such a case. To delay implementation until 1 April 2003 therefore seems unnecessary, as they should have been able to conduct all the necessary consultation to bring the provisions into effect sooner rather than later.
      No lesser an organisation than Help the Aged said in its briefing:
      "If local councils were reimbursed through the forthcoming Revenue Support Grant"—
      which the Minister has determined to do—
      "then the system could be introduced in the spring of 2002."
      I do not know how long ago that briefing was written, but there is no practical reason, unless the Minister tells us otherwise, why the Bill should not be brought into effect on 1 September.
      All those watching this debate will need to hear the Minister make a cast iron argument why that should not be so, particularly because the case has already been lost in the European Court of Human Rights. If such cases are to mean anything, the Government should move expeditiously to implement that judgment, which they

      475
      rightly upheld. We therefore very much look forward to what the Minister has to say on when the provisions can come into operation.
      Ms Keeble: Our commitment to equalising the age of entitlement is clear. We introduced the Bill very early in this Session. It made speedy progress through the other place and, hopefully, the House will today give the Bill its blessing and it can go forward for Royal Assent.
      If amendment No. 2, which would have changed the basis for the financial calculation, had been agreed to, there would have been a substantial delay in implementation. We expect to have the measure fully implemented by April 2003, and that remains our firm intention.
      I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern; implementation a full year off sounds a long way away. However, it is debatable whether the amendment would help local authorities, as they will have set their budgets and be part way through the financial year. As I said, the arrangements were designed for the efficient and orderly introduction of the scheme, as well as to ensure a proper financial basis. There is also the important point about ensuring that equalisation does not lead to any reductions in the number of such schemes.
      There are very good reasons for putting new and changed concessionary travel arrangements into operation at the beginning of a local authority financial year, rather than part way through it. Legislation governing schemes in London requires the boroughs and Transport for London to agree their schemes by 31 December for implementation at the start of the following financial year. So, implementation in London would in any case have to wait until April 2003.
      Furthermore, implementing the Act in April 2003 will harmonise other legislation to bring about age equalisation for concessionary fares across England and in Wales on the same day. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister has been somewhat parsimonious. It would be perfectly possible to introduce the scheme half way through a financial year and to adjust the revenue support grant next year to take that into account. I accept that, from the point of view of the orderly running of government, it is more tidy to introduce it on 1 April 2003, but we are talking about elderly people who may be on low incomes, and every little help makes their life just that much easier. I should have thought that the Government would be only too willing to get the Bill enacted and implemented as soon as possible. From the tone of the Minister's reply, I assume that she will reject the amendment. However, I hope that she will have an open mind on introducing the scheme by the end of the year, if not earlier, outside London—in the rest of England, which is where the bulk of people live.
      Mr. Don Foster: The Minister made some sensible points, which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, on the value of a 1 April date. Does he agree that she should at least stop saying that it is the Government's hope and intention to bring the Bill into effect on I April 2003, and assure us that that will be the latest date for implementation?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Before I decide whether to press the amendment to a vote, I am happy to give way to the
      476
      Minister so that she can give a cast-iron guarantee that the Bill will be implemented on 1 April 2003, because that would help the 1 million men to whom the debate is relevant.
      Ms Keeble: Discussions have to take place with local authority associations and Transport for London. Subject to those and the agreement of the House—for all I know, the hon. Gentleman might decide to vote against the Bill—the provisions will come into effect in April 2003.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: To be reasonable, that is the strongest assurance that we could hope for from the Minister. We will, however, watch her every move closely and hold her to account if that does not happen. On the basis of her genuine assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      3.42 pm
      Ms Keeble: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We are all aware of the purpose of this small but important Bill. It will entitle men to take advantage of all concessionary travel schemes from the age of 60 instead of 65. Equalising the age of entitlement for concessionary fares further demonstrates our commitment to tackling social exclusion and to ensuring that older people in society enjoy a full and active life. We want bus travel in particular to remain within the means of those on limited incomes and those with mobility difficulties. Bus travel is the most used form of public transport, especially by older people, and is of the most value to people as they move about their communities and go about their day-to-day lives.
      The House will recall that last year we brought into effect the provisions of the Transport Act 2000, which for the first time require local authorities to offer a minimum of 50 per cent. reductions for pensioners and disabled people on local bus services. The necessary bus travel pass must also be issued free of charge. Those changes are already benefiting 7 million people across England and Wales. In addition, many local authorities have more generous schemes that allow concessionary travel on other modes of transport. Some also provide free travel. The Bill will enable an extra 1 million men aged between 60 and 65 to enjoy the concessionary travel that is offered in their area.
      The debate has been constructive at all stages of the Bill's proceedings. I am grateful to those hon. Members who have taken part. I know that many Members have much to say on concessionary travel. I am pleased that there is a general appreciation of and, despite the minor reservations, support for what the Bill attempts to achieve. It will bring real benefits to many people.
      3.44
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: We had a good debate on Second Reading and examined many issues in Committee on a fairly consensual basis. The Government did not accede to many amendments, but the broad consensus is that the Bill is welcome. It will benefit 1,177,700 men aged between 60 and 64 in England. They will be grateful to

      477
      Mr. Matthews for taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights and to the Government for implementing the judgment. It is worth reiterating that the problem could have been put right had the appropriate amendment to the Transport Bill been accepted.
      There is still some dissatisfaction, however. The level of concessionary fares, which are in place throughout the country, varies according to where one lives. We support the principle that the Minister outlined: local authorities should be responsible for their spending and taxing decisions, and we would expect some variance. However, the variance is considerable, and I ask the Minister to urge all local authorities to aim to match the best schemes.
      As with all schemes, it would be interesting to discover why thousands of pensioners do not take advantage of the benefits that are on offer. The Minister should not let the Bill be the end of the matter—indeed, perhaps it should signal the beginning of a new era of providing a better service for our pensioners. I have a particular interest in the Bill because my constituency has the third highest number of over-85-year-olds in the country. There must be something about the Cotswold air that makes them live longer. I am delighted about that and hope that the average age continues to increase. Mercifully, advances in medical science are enabling the population to live longer. I am all for it because it means that I shall live longer too, much to the chagrin of Labour Members—but then they, too, will live longer, so we will also have to put up with them for longer.
      If we are a civilised society, we should do all that we can to help people at the end of their working life, and the Bill goes a long way towards achieving that. It is interesting that a significant number of men in the 60 to 65 category are still working and may benefit from the scheme, as I said in Committee. I suspect that there might be an uneven take-up among authorities, especially metropolitan authorities in London and those on its edges, because people in that age group who commute are likely to want to benefit from the scheme. I know that the concessions do not apply in normal working hours, but people who are at the end of their working life, especially those in more senior jobs, can work more flexible hours. They may well be able to amend their hours to take advantage of the scheme. That is a good thing.
      We will watch the Government carefully on costs. I do not want to go into them in too much detail, but they are important and we need to ensure that the Government make adequate provision for the full costs of the scheme. The Minister for the Environment said that local authorities will be reimbursed for reasonable costs. A good general principle is that when Government impose additional burdens on local authorities, those authorities should be reimbursed for the full costs of those obligations.
      The Government have recently imposed a raft of obligations on local authorities, and authorities are losing out because they are not being reimbursed. Examples are the best value initiative, changes in arrangements for the collection and disposal of waste, the fuel tax and extra pension costs, but the list is pretty long. Because the Government have not funded council tax properly this year, most rural shire counties will have to raise council tax by an average of 7.5 per cent., three times the inflation rate. That is one of the biggest stealth taxes imposed by
      478
      the Government. I hope that, once the Bill has been enacted, all local authorities will consider carefully how it can be applied to their citizens' best advantage.
      It is regrettable that the scheme does not apply to local authority boundaries. That is unfair on those living near such boundaries. In Committee, I pointed out that someone travelling from Moreton-in-Marsh, in the north of my constituency, to a hospital in Evesham would have to cross at least one—possibly two—local authority boundaries. The scheme would not help that person if they wished to travel by bus, which would be perfectly feasible.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) nods. His constituents living in and around Evesham might want to make the journey in reverse, and travel to the hospital in Moreton-in-Marsh. I would urge them to do so, because that would benefit the hospital.
      We have engaged in a long debate on a relatively simple Bill. I think all Members now wish it godspeed, and hope that the Minister will consult local government associations and major metropolitan counties so that authorities can benefit their citizens as soon as possible.
      3.52 pm
      Mr. Don Foster: I have already made clear that Liberal Democrats support the Bill. We have engaged in helpful discussions of what is, as the Minister says, a relatively small Bill—discussions that have ranged widely, and have provided an opportunity for a number of further points to be discussed with Ministers.
      In Committee, for instance, there was a fair amount of discussion of the need for better facilities for disabled people on public transport. Members on both sides mentioned that. We have been able to discuss the need to extend concessionary fare schemes, not least for young people. More than 50 per cent. of those who have not taken advantage of further and higher education cite lack of public transport as one of the main barriers.
      Today we have had an opportunity to ask the Minister for an assurance that existing schemes that are more generous than the mandatory minimum schemes will not be jeopardised. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), we have also had an opportunity to discuss other possible extensions to concessionary fare arrangements. The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issue of boundaries, to which Age Concern referred cogently in a briefing that was used in Committee:
      "The government"s present limitation seems to expect that elderly and disabled people should keep all of their family and friends, all their health care providers, all their shopping, entertainment and recreations, all their places of worship—indeed all their possible reasons for travel—in the same local authority area as themselves. The government may believe in strong local neighbourhoods, but this seems to be carrying the principle a little too far."
      Members of all parties supported that view then, and I suspect that they still do.
      The Committee then moved to the issue of concessionary fare schemes for coaches. When I asked the Minister about that, she replied
      "I cannot at present give a date for implementation, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman and others who are as interested know the implementation date as soon as possible."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 November 2001; c. 56.]

      479
      I should be grateful if the Minister would remind us of the implementation date, and also give absolute assurances that the funding regime has been established and accepted by all parties.
      As is often the case, we have been ably supported during our deliberations by a number of organisations with particular interests in the issues. It is only right for us to pay tribute to the good work of many of them, such as Age Concern, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Local Government Association, the Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People and Greater London Action on Disability. The greatest credit, however, must surely go to Parity, which, by taking the original Matthews case to the European Court, put pressure on the Government to introduce this much-needed and long overdue legislation.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Let me associate the official Opposition with the thanks the hon. Gentleman has conveyed to all those organisations. Without their help, the debate would have been much the poorer.
      Mr. Foster: I am more than happy to do so.
      The Bill is important. We hope that it will be enacted on the earliest possible date, and if that is 1 April 2003, so be it. Sadly, however, as it leaves this place for the last time a number of questions remain unanswered.
      We are still not sure that the Bill will have no impact on existing schemes. We are still not certain that the Government will find a fair mechanism for the distribution of the pot of money that they make available to compensate councils, and we are still not certain that, however it is distributed, it will cover the full cost. That said, however, I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Cotswold and wish the Bill godspeed.
      3.58 pm
      Mr. Wiggin: Local authorities' power to offer concessionary fares was introduced as early as 1955 under a Conservative Government. The latest Transport Act seeks to ensure that pensioners and disabled people are guaranteed half-price fares or better on local buses. Bus travel is vital for my constituents. Access for disabled travellers at Leominster station is already negligible, and the estimated cost of putting that right is well over £400,000.
      Under current legislation, eligibility for travel concessions is linked to the state-pension age, currently 60 for women and 65 for men. I personally welcome the equalisation of the qualifying ages at 60 and accept the wisdom of increasing the qualifying age to 65 by 2020, but I expect that in 2032, when I am eligible, it will have become even higher. Local authorities are obliged to reimburse bus operators for their forgone revenue; in theory, local authorities are reimbursed from central Government through the revenue support scheme. In my area, Malvern Hills district council was forced to introduce concessionary fares by the Government, but did not receive compensation through the revenue support scheme. Indeed, the only money which it received was a tiny sum to help pay for consultation, which forced it to increase council tax. I am worried that that is another gap in the funding chain, forcing councils with higher proportions of elderly people to charge more council tax and further penalise people on fixed incomes, especially
      480
      pensioners. They may win on the buses, but they end up paying more council tax, as I said earlier. That is not exactly what the Government set out to achieve initially.
      The Government's failure to follow their funding through gives rise to serious concern. The travel concessions scheme will cost £54 million, which has been factored into the local government finance settlement. However, distributing funds via the standard spending assessment means that smaller district councils that receive no revenue support grant will not be properly compensated. That is another flaw in the scheme which needs to be corrected. I am not making a spending commitment for the Government, as they have already pledged to fund the scheme; what is needed is a fair and effective distribution of money.
      Councils already suffer enough from red tape and stealth taxation without another burden being imposed on those of us who pay council tax. We want guarantees that those holes will be plugged so that we can support the alteration to the concessionary travel age. We want a reduction in ring-fenced funding, which has risen from 4 per cent. to 10 per cent.
      The fact that buses cross local authority boundaries gives rise to another problem. It would be fair for travel concessions to be valid across boundaries, which may result in a higher take-up of the scheme. That would be a tremendous asset, as well as a positive and sensible step. It does not make sense for the Government to go to all that trouble to introduce a less popular scheme. Indeed, the target in one of their 10-year plans suggested an increase in bus usage of up to 20 per cent, so it would be wise to budget for a rising uptake. An amendment tabled when the Transport Act 2000 was in Committee gave the Government the chance to equalise the age for concessionary fares. However, despite the fact that ageism and sex discrimination are prohibited and reviled, the Labour Government chose to vote against it. Today, let us put right that wrong.
      4.2 pm
      Ms Keeble: I shall detain the House only a short time in replying to the points made in our debate.
      The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) urged us to ensure that all local authorities raise their schemes to the level of the best. The Government have repeatedly advised and exhorted local authorities to do just that. However, I pay tribute to all those local authorities, most of them Labour-controlled, but also some Conservative ones, which pioneered concessionary fares for pensioners and people with disabilities, and kept that going through all the years of cuts under the Conservative Government. It is an acknowledgement of their work over the years that the Labour Government are now able to extend the concessionary fares scheme nationally and to back it fully, I remind the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), with Government funds.
      The hon. Member for Cotswold talked about providing better services for pensioners. Again, I remind him that the Government introduced the winter fuel allowance, as well as the concessionary fares scheme, which we are now extending. We abolished eye test payments for pensioners. The Bill is not the last word on what we are doing for pensioners; we are discussing the extension of fuel duty rebate to coaches, an issue raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). That plan will be introduced. Another

      481
      of our initiatives is the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. We plan to extend fuel duty rebate to community transport, which will benefit many older people. Extra money is going to the rural bus challenge and into rural transport, which will be of overwhelming benefit to pensioners. A number of schemes introduced under the rural bus challenge, for example, will make sure that older people can get to hospital.
      The hon. Member for Bath talked about concessions to students, which are being progressed through the Department for Education and Skills, and trialled in local authority areas in the north-east with the aim of a national extension. There is genuine progress on that issue. Interest in the Bill is in direct proportion to its benefits. I believe that I am the only Member in the Chamber at present who will not benefit from it at all. The hon. Members for Bath and for Leominster expressed uncertainties, queries and qualms about it, but I urge the House to give it a ringing endorsement. Whatever the difficulties or pressures involved in its implementation, it gives us the certainty that all over-60s, men and women alike, will have a national system of concessionary fares for the first time ever. That will result in a genuine difference in their quality of life, as they will be able to travel and lead the kind of life that we want older people to lead. For the first time, there is the certainty of a concessionary fare backed by Government funds; people will recognise that a Labour Government achieved that.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

      Agriculture
      4.6 pm
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I beg to move,
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-natural Areas) (England) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3966), dated 10th December 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th December, be annulled.
      This debate provides an opportunity for the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), to address a number of concerns about the new regulations raised by people who will most feel their impact. It also enables us to explore the way in which the regulations will work in practice and the Government's true intentions. There are questions about the extent to which the Government have added unnecessarily to the intentions of the original 1985 European Union directive.
      When the Minister replies to the debate, will he outline the scale of the problem that the regulations are designed to address? How much evidence is there, for example, that valuable heathland, marshland and environmentally important farmland is being ploughed up or changed in a way that the regulations seek to prevent? I am aware that because some unscrupulous people have realised that regulations are in the pipeline, there has been an increase in the ploughing-up of valuable sites. The Government have used existing powers in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to prevent that.
      I speak with feeling about that because a few years ago, as the Minister may recall, I introduced a private Member's Bill to protect hedgerows. As a result, I suspect that I am inadvertently the person most responsible for the destruction of hedgerows in the countryside. However, the point is that powers are in existence and can be applied. I should be grateful if the Minister addressed the scope of the problem; how, precisely, will the new regulations address the problem?
      The Minister may be slightly embarrassed—indeed, there may be embarrassment on both sides of the House—because the directive behind the regulations dates back to 1985. It has taken 17 years and the threat of infraction proceedings for the Government finally to get round to introducing national regulations. The directive already applies to wide areas of industry, but agriculture is the one that got away. The problem is that, in the end, nothing gets away from EU directives, however long ago they were signed and however inappropriate or anachronistic they may turn out to be when they eventually become enforced under the threat of infraction procedures, as is happening in this case.
      In the 17 years since the directive was introduced, life has moved on. As the Curry report, which was published earlier this week, has reminded us, there is now greater recognition of the interlinked relationship between farming, the environment and the whole of rural ecology and the rural economy. Good environmental practice is now much more widely recognised to be good business practice as well. That understanding is not confined to the rural economy; it applies to industry and to the economy as a whole. I think that that it is extremely welcome.
      While there will always be a need to take precautions against wide boys and unscrupulous operators, it should no longer be commonplace for Government to set out to

      483
      catch the entire flock when seeking the black sheep. The Curry report warns of the need to watch the cumulative effect of regulations, especially on small businesses. It recommends that the Government should publish an annual aggregate compliance cost figure for new regulations. It also urges a more streamlined and simple approach to providing information about regulations. We support those proposals and I hope that the Minister will welcome them.
      What is really required, however, is a change in the culture of regulation. There is a need for the Government to change their mindset. They should challenge the assumption that they should always do more and ask instead whether they could do less and do it better. A mature relationship between Government and the governed and between the Department and farmers will be based not on rules, regulations and threats of punishment, but on trust. In agriculture more than almost anywhere else, the old command and control mentality still prevails and trust seems to have broken down utterly. Restoring and building trust between Government and the rural community is one of the greatest challenges that we face. Be that as it may, we accept that the Government have no choice but to introduce these measures in some form, even though they are based on the false assumption that they know best and that all farmers are inclined to be rapers and pillagers of the landscape if they are given half a chance.
      The issue today is not the fact that the regulations are being imposed, but the way in which they are being introduced. There are a number of concerns. First, on timing, it is unfortunate to say the least that the Government are introducing new regulations on the farming industry after what has been in many ways its worst year in living memory. Foot and mouth disease has left lasting scars in the rural community. New outbreaks of bovine tuberculosis are causing serious problems. Classical swine fever, rhizomania and poor harvests have added to the problems faced by this beleaguered industry. Together with the weakness of the euro and the strangulation of red tape, those problems lie behind the fact that farm incomes are still 72 per cent. below their 1995 level. This must be one of the worst times to introduce new rules and extra costs for the farming industry, but that is exactly what the regulations entail.
      I know that the Government carried out two consultations on the regulations during 2001. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for providing on 17 January some information in response to my parliamentary question about the number of responses that the Department received. The Minister might be tempted to take comfort from the fact that not many responses were submitted. The Department received 42 replies to the first consultation and 32 to the second. That is not many, given that the regulations affect every single registered agricultural holding in England. In her reply, the Secretary of State said:
      "Respondents included statutory agencies (English Nature, English Heritage, Environment Agency and Countryside Agency) and bodies representing environmental and historical interests and the farming industry."—[Official Report,; Vol. 378, c. 482W.]
      It is interesting that the farming industry comes last on that list. I wonder how many farmers replied to the
      484
      consultation and how much notice the Government took of what they said. I can only note that the National Farmers Union has recorded that it is
      "dismayed that many of our key concerns have not been satisfactorily resolved."
      I do not know what efforts the Department made to consult individual farmers about the regulations. When I asked one farmer whether he had responded to either of the consultations, he said that he got so many questions from DEFRA these days and had so much else to worry about that he had not even noticed them. I fear that that is typical. The Minister should not assume that silence from farmers signifies consent. It is more likely these days to signify utter demoralisation and, in many cases, despair.
      As a result, the regulations have taken many people by surprise. The latest edition of Farmers' Weekly, that excellent publication—I have no doubt that the Minister will agree that it is essential reading—reports:
      "Farmers across the country were this week sent a leaflet which explains how the scheme, which comes into force in one week, aims to protect uncultivated and semi-natural land.
      Andrew Clark, NFU head of environment, said while it was reassuring farmers finally had some details, they had been given fewer than 10 days to get to grips with them.
      'It doesn't give people enough time to figure out what it is, he said."
      Given the very short notice of the details of the regulations, which are due to take effect tomorrow, will the Minister confirm that he will exercise some lenience in their enforcement? After all, it is not the fault of farmers that they have been given only 10 days to assimilate the new regulations and their implications for their land holdings.
      There is also the question of the regulations' cost. In replying to my question on the matter, again on 17 January, the Secretary of State admitted that the Government did not know how much the regulations would cost either the Department or the landowners. The Minister shakes his head, but the Secretary of State said that the costs to the Department of administering the scheme are put at between £100,000 and £200,000. A 100 per cent. margin of error seems pretty generous. Compared with the average farm income of £7,800 a year, the sum is considerable. As the Department cannot cope at the moment even with handling routine support payments, the Minister might wish to consider whether the money could be spent rather more productively. The costs to landowners are put at between £20,000 and £28,000 per 100 projects. Of course, that is money that they can ill afford, but it may also represent a fraction of the real cost.
      The NFU has expressed concerns about the regulations' impact on the capital value of farmland. It has recorded that it is "extremely concerned" that the new regime will undermine land values by reducing the flexibility of the uses to which land can be put. It has calculated that the capital devaluation for potential arable land could be as much as £500 to £1,000 a hectare, which is about £200 to £400 an acre. Given that the capital value of agricultural land has effectively underpinned the banking sector's confidence in farming during this very difficult period, that is potentially a serious issue. Has the Minister undertaken an analysis of the regulations' possible impact on the underlying value of farmland?

      485
      Uncertainty surrounds the issue of whether set-aside land will be caught by the regulations. The pamphlet issued by the Department merely advises people to call a helpline if they have concerns about such land. I know of a farmer who telephoned the helpline earlier today. He rang 0800 028 2140 and a pleasant voice answered, saying "EIA"—[Laughter.] Not "Ee ay addy oh". The farmer said that he had a parcel of land that had been set aside since 1992 and asked whether it would be affected by the new regulations. The person at the other end answered that they did not know and that he needed to speak to the countryside stewardship scheme. They very kindly provided a phone number. He dialled the number and got through to the scheme, but he was transferred and then cut off. He dialled the number again and finally got through to somebody who said that they did not know the answer to his question and that he needed to speak to someone at the environmental impact assessment unit. At that point, he thanked them and they said that they would call back. The service that is being offered to farmers who are genuinely concerned about how the regulations will affect their livelihoods and what they can do with their land is not adequate.
      The guidance notes provided by the Department are equally unclear. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that landowners get proper, timely and accurate advice when they inquire about set aside? Will set-aside land be excluded from the new regime? I would welcome the Minister's comments.
      Mr. Bill Wiggin: This is an extremely important point. In my constituency, there are a huge number of apple growers. The booklet on the regulations mentions that orchards come under the EIA. It is essential that farmers in my constituency find out when the Minister replies what the understanding is for orchards. Currently the crops are grubbed up about every 25 years. I wonder whether my hon. Friend could press the Minister for an answer on that point.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point, which has been raised by outside concerns. It would be helpful if the Minister expressly addressed the issue of orchards, which do need to be grubbed up. The regulations should not impair normal farming practice. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is not his intention and that it will not happen under the regulations as drafted.
      There is concern about the way in which the regulations may affect existing agri-environmental agreements such as the countryside stewardship scheme. The Country Landowners Association has highlighted the fact that land managers entered voluntary agreements on the basis that their options would remain open at the end of agreement period. By potentially restricting the options open to land managers, the regulations change the basis on which the original agreements were made.
      That problem could be mitigated if the Department stated that landowners will be offered the opportunity to renew their agreements on equivalent terms once they expire. Again, I would welcome the Minister's remarks on that issue. There is a danger that unless it is addressed, the regulations will act as a disincentive to farmers to
      486
      enter into new agreements to protect the environment or, indeed, to engage in sensible diversification. I am sure that he would agree that that would be extremely regrettable.
      I have received a letter from Mr. Michael Payne, a farmer and environmental consultant, who points out that the regulations could have a particular impact in the areas worst affected by foot and mouth disease. He says:
      "Permanent grassland (down for more than 10 years) is one of the land types most likely to be affected"
      by the regulations.
      "This is particularly prevalent in the uplands, and in the wake of foot and mouth, the need for farming businesses to have the freedom to restructure without additional bureaucracy and cost may be crucial."
      I hope that the Minister will provide some reassurance on that point. Clearly, it would be wrong for regulations, so soon after the ending of the foot and mouth outbreak and the calamity that that spelt for the countryside, to impact particularly harshly on the people who suffered most.
      Mr. Payne raises the general point about the gold-plating of EU directives. That goes to the heart of many of the concerns that have been raised about the Government's proposals. On 30 March 2000, the Government published their action plan for farming. In it, they said:
      "The Government's policy on implementing EU obligations in relation to farming will be to avoid all 'gold plating' of the legislation, its implementation and enforcement; to regulate in the least bureaucratic and burdensome way and to avoid implementing legislation ahead of specified EU deadlines."
      They certainly have not implemented the regulations ahead of the EU deadline but what about the gold-plating? Will the Minister confirm that the Government have chosen to ignore the de minimis threshold allowed by the directive? Is not it the case that article 4 of the directive allows member states to set a cut-off point below which farming projects will be excluded?
      Paragraph 20 of the guidelines that were issued recently says:
      "We will not work to any specific threshold criteria. We are obviously more likely to consider large projects as significant than minor ones",
      but is there not a need to ask whether minor ones need to be considered at all? Will not the regulations add substantially to the administrative costs for the Department, as well as adding to the tangle of red tape that is already tying farmers in knots? Does not the provision amount to gold-plating?
      I have secured a copy of the original directive. Article 1 states clearly:
      "This directive shall apply to the assessment of the environmental effects of those public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment."
      Setting aside the fact that many of the schemes caught by the regulations are unlikely to be considered "significant" to any normal observer, it is clear that the directive is aimed at major, large-scale projects such as construction projects.
      Andrew Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that very small areas of land can have a significant impact on the landscape?
      Mr. Ainsworth: We are dealing with semantics but I do not think that it was the intention of the directive—if

      487
      the hon. Gentleman chooses to reason, I think that he will form the same conclusion—to catch some minor change in the method of cropping in the corner of someone's field.
      Malcolm Bruce: An important point has been raised. Farmers do not want to be over-regulated, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, but organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds say that even a 3 ft margin on a field can have significant implications for the wildlife. The cumulative effect of a lot of very small things has a significant environmental impact. Presumably that is part of what the directive had in mind.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the cumulative effects but I hope that he shares the concern about the cumulative effects of regulation on farmers' ability to go about their business at all. Piling regulations on the fanning sector makes it less viable, less profitable and in the long run less able to look after the environment that we all care about so much.
      It seems that the directive is primarily aimed at things such as gravel pits, motorways and large-scale factory developments. Article 1.2 of the directive makes that clear:
      "'project' means
      the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes,
      other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources".
      Notwithstanding the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), it must be doubtful whether the original intention of the directive was to embrace minor alterations to the corner of a field, or the recropping of a field with a higher percentage of rye grass.
      The Government's efforts to make the pill slightly less bitter than it would otherwise be give a faintly laughable tone to the leaflet that they have circulated, and indeed to the guidelines. However they are dressed up, it is impossible to escape the fact that these are new regulations. They impose new burdens on farmers. They threaten fines of up to £5,000 for non-compliance.
      It is true that the regulations set up an appeals process but appeals will be made to the Secretary of State, to officials in the Department or to people appointed by the Department, which is the enforcing agency. There is no right of appeal to an independent body. I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on why that is.
      There is no getting away from the fact that this is an increase in regulation. One would be hard pushed, however, to work all this out from reading the notes, pamphlets and leaflets published by the Department. I have a copy of a page from the leaflet. It says:
      "What is EIA?
      EIA is a way of helping farmers, land managers and others to consider the environmental effects of changing the way they use their land."
      The idea that these regulations are primarily to help farmers is pure fiction. The Government might be wearing a double set of kid gloves, but the iron fist keeps poking through at the knuckles. There is no reference in the information supplied to farmers by the Government of the penalties applicable for non-compliance and there is no such reference in the leaflet.
      488
      A casual glance at the information would lead one to think that the regulations were, in some way, the answer to farmers prayers; something that they have been asking for rather than something that has caused them considerable concern.
      The guidelines state that the regulations
      "contribute significantly to a clearer understanding of good agricultural practice."
      So says the Department.
      Has the Minister thought to consider the implication of that statement? The implication is that land managers do not have a clear understanding of good agricultural practice. Many of us wonder why the Government believe that they understand good agricultural practice better than farmers do. The Minister should justify that belief in his remarks. It is time to challenge the assumption that has characterised the relationship between agriculture and Government for too long. It is the patronising assumption that politicians and civil servants know better than farmers what is good for them.
      There is no other industry in the world in which the machinery of government is so intimately involved in people's daily lives and decisions. Of course there should be penalties for those who knowingly and deliberately set out to wreck important wildlife sites or landscape features. Of course there is a need to recognise in law the public value of a sustainable and diverse environment. Of course there is a need for regulation, particularly where human health is at stake. However, on 3 January, Lord Whitty, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the other place said that
      "the benefits from maintaining environmentally valuable areas could provide a significant source of income to farmers as land managers as well as food producers."
      If the Government believe that, why do they not let farmers get on with their job without the introduction of new heavy-handed, negative regulations that go beyond the original intentions of the directive?
      I regret that these regulations will do nothing to foster the trust that will be central to economic recovery and vitality in the countryside and I doubt whether, in the real world, they will afford much protection to important natural sites, the majority of which are already protected under different legislation.
      I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers to my questions and to those that other hon. Members will wish to put to him.
      4.34 pm
      Malcolm Bruce: I endorse many of the reservations raised by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). There are legitimate concerns. I also take the view, however, that the directive requires action by the United Kingdom Government and the question should be about how to achieve the best balance between farmers being able to do their job, as the hon. Member for East Surrey pointed out, and the need adequately to protect the environment.
      The nature of farming is that it consists of small and medium-sized businesses. It is difficult for an individual farmer to see the cumulative effect of his actions, and those of many others, on the environment. The genuine debate about the way that farming is changing, in which the public are engaged, involves the extent to which it

      489
      has, in some areas, had a detrimental effect on the landscape. That is not necessarily because the farmers were bad managers, but because practices that were accepted in the past have subsequently been found to be detrimental. For example, nitrate use has severe implications in some parts of the country. I know of farmers' concerns. I have a 55 hectare nitrate vulnerable zone in my constituency. I understand farmers who fear the regulations, but I equally care about the environment that the nitrates are destroying. We must do something about it.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman will know that the number of nitrate vulnerable zones is about to be increased across vast amounts of arable land. Does he accept that farmers have been driven by whatever is the thinking at the time? Is not this a question of re-educating people, particularly the next generation of farmers in agricultural colleges, away from the practice of maximum production, which has grown up throughout our lifetime? That has been driven by market forces that should perhaps be tempered, but not with heavy regulations like these.
      Malcolm Bruce: That is what the debate is about. It is a fair, reasonable and constructive point. I can make the copper-bottomed statement that farmers are perfectly capable of change and adaptation. They have proved that over many years. However, right now, most of them are not making a living. Whatever the Government do, whether it is implementing the Curry report or these regulations, they must accept that the exchange rate, the fact that they did not receive the agrimoney compensation in full and the market effects mean that most farmers cannot make a living. Unless they make a living, there will be no one to manage the environment or produce the food in the quantities that we need. That is the difficulty facing the Government. The hon. Member for East Surrey was right to say that the timing is unfortunate, but because of infraction proceedings we must do something about it.
      I am concerned that the regulations could be bureaucratic. The language in the guidelines is gentle, but it effectively means that every farmer in the country could be in negotiation with the Department. That is perfectly possible. We know that the Department has difficulty negotiating with itself at the moment, never mind negotiating with farmers. The Department's ability to handle this is not reassuring—I am sure that it will not be able to handle the vast amount of work. Paragraph 3 of the guidelines says:
      "Although these procedures are based on legal requirements, with penalties for non-compliance, we will seek wherever possible to apply them in co-operation with the farmers and others who may be involved."
      The guidelines go on to make suggestions about agri-environment schemes.
      Most farmers will want to know how the regulations will apply in practice, whether there will be a genuine partnership and whether it will be over-bureaucratic. I welcome the fact that the Government have said that there will be a review after 18 months and that there will be an opportunity to see whether the operation should be lightened, tightened or clarified. I give the Government
      490
      credit for acknowledging that we are not quite there yet and that we need to apply the regulations in law and see how they work.
      The Minister must understand that gentle words, which are, nevertheless, legally enforceable, give cause for concern because people do not know when they will be in breach or the costs and the detail in which they will be engaged. It will cost some money to put up schemes for consideration. The time scale is specific. Thirty-five days is not a long time to get advice and, sadly, there is no longer the free or low-cost advice that was available when the agricultural development and advisory scheme was at is height. That is a matter for concern, because it will impose significant costs. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Department will take an approach that does not require farmers to employ expensive consultants to qualify, or to avoid refusal if they are trying to make some changes to their farm or its management.
      The hon. Member for East Surrey mentioned a reduction in the value of farms—a point that has also been made by the NFU—and I noticed that the Minister shook his head. I find it hard to believe the NFU's claim that land values will be affected across the board. However, individual farms could be affected, which would be a legitimate concern for them, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that.
      I agree with the point that it is less than satisfactory that the right of appeals should be from the Department to the Department. The Department is unlikely to change its mind on appeal if the same people are considering the issue. The right of appeal to an arm's-length, independent body is normal and what people expect. In Scotland, that was an issue in disputes over payments under the IACS scheme and an appeals process has now been established. The Minister is at arm's length and is engaged in the process only as a participant, rather than as the determinant of the appeal. Such a process would be appropriate in this instance.
      We have all received representations from the NFU and the Country Landowners Association, but we have also received representations supporting the regulations from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which—as we should remember—is one of the biggest public membership organisations in the country. It far outweighs the membership of all the political parties combined and carries much clout and muscle as a result.
      One farmer in my constituency has long worked with the RSPB. He will admit that he has a personal obsession with the issue and that he is not typical, but his farm provides a fantastic array of habitats and reserves for birds and other wildlife. That has significantly affected the whole area, because he provides—in some cases—the only feeding or resting places for the birds, alongside a successful arable farm. He makes the point that relatively small changes on the margins have substantial positive implications for wildlife.
      Farmers ask, "Why should anyone interfere with me when I want to reorganise my fields and change the boundaries?" However, we know that although the removal of one hedge does not make much difference, the removal of all the hedges makes a huge difference. Similarly, ploughing up to the hedge leaves one habitat, but ploughing 3 ft short of the hedge has a significant impact on insects and wildlife. In that case, farmers need uniform guidelines, so that they do not have to go through

      491
      an individual process. The hon. Member for East Surrey suggests that the helpline is undeveloped, but it could provide the answers. We need clear answers to straight questions, and that would greatly simplify the bureaucracy.
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The issue of hedgerows is now covered by regulations, and the example that the hon. Gentleman has just given of minor changes to field boundaries would not fall within the scope of these regulations. The real question is what the regulations would achieve other than an increase in red tape.
      Malcolm Bruce: As a Liberal Democrat, I am—not surprisingly—proposing a third way. The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about excessive regulations and, on the basis of what we know at the moment, so are farmers. I congratulate him on instigating the debate, because the questions need to be answered, both today and in the practice and the review in the next 18 months. The Conservatives claim that the regulations are excessive and will not achieve enough. In 18 months, they or the Government will be proved right, and then we may get the balance right.
      The Minister is enacting legislation because of the threat of infraction proceedings by the EU, but his proposals are not clear. The industry does not understand them fully and nor do the environmentalists. To be honest, I am not convinced that the Department understand them fully either. However, that is not meant as a devastating criticism. If, during the next 18 months, the Government make an honest attempt to get the balance right and, at the end of that time, the review systematically deals with the issues, we may produce legislation that will work.
      The Minister should listen to the concerns about excessive bureaucracy and the consequent costs. He should also make the case for the environmental benefits. He also needs to reassure farmers that he is trying to offer a simple, clear and comprehensible system that they can live with, and which is not too bureaucratic, costly or confusing. Farmers certainly should not face penalties when they did not know that their practices would incur them. I hope that the Minister will address those legitimate concerns now and during the next 18 months.
      4.46 pm
      Mr. Henry Bellingham: I endorse the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), but at the start I declare an interest because I own land in Norfolk that could be affected by the regulations.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said, farming is in real crisis at the moment. In the two years before the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, 42,000 farmers left the industry. Anyone who has visited livestock-producing areas, such as that represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), will know of the sheer devastation in those communities. Compensation for those farmers is a big issue, but other industries—such as tourism—were affected by the foot and mouth crisis and the issue of compensation for them also arises.
      Historically, the arable areas have been the most viable and prosperous farming districts. If the prices of one or two crops failed one year, another crop would have a good
      492
      year. If grain prices were down, people would get a better price for potatoes. If potatoes and grain were both down, they could rely on the prices for sugar beet. Until recently, many farms in Norfolk were very diversified. For example, many had livestock, such as poultry. Now, every farm in Norfolk is making a loss and if it were not for IACS, the farmers would face a disaster on the same scale as those farmers in the livestock breeding and rearing areas.
      Mr. Robathan: Will my hon. Friend confirm that not all his local farmers have yet received their IACS payments because of inefficiency and industrial action in the Department? That delay could be critical for a farmer on the cusp of bankruptcy.
      Mr. Bellingham: That is absolutely right. People assume that all farmers in places such as Norfolk, Suffolk, Lincolnshire and Leicestershire farm 500 or 600 acres, but they do not. Many smallholders in those counties struggle to make a living, possibly after losing the other job that they used to do in addition to working the smallholding.
      As I said, there is a silver lining. The countryside stewardship scheme and other agri-environmental schemes have meant that many farmers receive other incomes. Charles Barratt, a prominent Norfolk business man and stockbroker, recently expressed in his newsletter his gratitude that the country stewardship scheme existed. He was right to do so, as the countryside is changing. The trend to ever more intensive farming has been reversed, and the days of prairie farming are over. More emphasis is now placed on habitat, conservation and biodiversity.
      My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey made a good point when he said that more and more farmers recognise that what is good for the environment is often also good for business. The overwhelming majority of farmers now look for every opportunity to encourage the wildlife on their farms.
      I hope that the Minister will recognise the crucial importance of country sports, for example. He goes on about the need to protect jobs in the countryside, but he is part of the campaign to destroy those jobs. That goes down badly with farmers in my constituency.
      Travelling around Norfolk, one is struck by the number of tubular tree guards in hedges, which show that new hedges are being laid. One also sees increased conservation headland. Last Friday, I went on an ecological walk around John Alexander's Westwick estate, and every field had a 20-metre headland. I also noticed that a number of rough field corners had recently been moved out of cultivation.
      That is typical of many East Anglian farms. The landscape is being transformed by dedicated and committed farmers, in a climate of extreme economic pressure. They are acting partly in response to the incentives that have been put in place, but also out of their love for the countryside.
      That is the context into which the regulations that we are discussing are being introduced. They will bring in environmental impact assessment procedures for projects to convert uncultivated land, or semi-natural land areas, to intensive agriculture. The Department's guidelines make clear the type of land that will be affected.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey noted, the regulations were published on 18 January, but they come into force tomorrow. No wonder, therefore, that there is so little awareness of what is going on.

      493
      My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey also said that a number of organisations have voiced considerable concern about the regulations. The Council for the Protection of Rural England supported the regulations, and even said that they did not go far enough. However, the council did not produce a briefing paper. In contrast, a number of other organisations have produced excellent briefing papers, and I have also been contacted by a number of farmers in my constituency who are concerned. Farmers involved in the countryside stewardship scheme or others like it, or those who meet the set-aside obligations, are very worried indeed.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey pointed out, the 25 to 30 per cent, rye grass guideline test is of crucial importance. The measure means that land will be considered uncultivated if it has less than the threshold 25 to 30 per cent, of rye grass—or of white clover, or of other sown grass species indicative of cultivation.
      The National Farmers Union has stated clearly that the species of grass used by most farmers to ensure that they meet the requirements of the countryside stewardship scheme are such that, just three months after planting, land will be caught by the 25 to 30 per cent, rye grass guideline. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey made a good point when he said that farmers entering into the countryside stewardship scheme did so on a promise and a contract that made it very clear that new restrictions would not be imposed at the end of the agreement term. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some hint of comfort in that regard.
      I hope too that the Minister will accept that there should be no disincentive for farmers to enter the countryside stewardship scheme, which everyone agrees is excellent. It would be a great pity if farmers were discouraged from joining it, for the reasons that I have given.
      My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey also spoke about the possible reduction in land values. Everyone knows that the value of farm land is now unrelated and disconnected from its underlying productive capacity. My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility that land values could be reduced by as much as £500 per acre. If he is correct, I hope that the Minister will comment.
      I hope that the Minister will also say something about the need for compensation for farmers affected by the measure. Will there be a compensation package of any sort? What is the Government's attitude to farmers who manifestly will be out of pocket as a result of the regulations?
      The Country Land and Business Association, among other organisations, is seeking formal assurances from the Government on the definition of semi-improved land. It is also concerned whether IACS-registered set-aside can be excluded on the basis that it is clearly neither uncultivated nor semi-natural. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) asked a moment ago, can DEFRA cope with the burdens of the new regulations? I very much doubt it, because many farmers in my constituency have complained bitterly to me that the IACS payments are well behind. They ring up Cambridge, talk to sympathetic
      494
      people on the telephone and are told that the payment will arrive soon. I hope that the Minister understands that this money is crucial to cash flow. It is crucial, in many cases, to farmers being able to employ the few remaining staff they have left on their farms, if they employ anyone at all.
      I hope that the Minister will also consider whether it is really necessary to have criminal penalties, with farmers breaching the regulations committing a criminal offence. I agree that there must be penalties but should we really give farmers a criminal record and fine them heavily in the criminal courts over a matter that I believe should be in the civil court domain?
      I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) will be concerned about orchards. In the north-western part of my constituency, there are a number of growers of hard and soft fruits in the marshland area. The environmental impact assessment regime could prevent the grubbing up and replanting of redundant orchards. That would be a disaster. It would devalue the land and do the reverse of what the Minister has said on a number of occasions that he wants.
      The Minister has been down to my constituency. He came in 1998, looked around various orchards and went round a number of glasshouse complexes in the marshland. He came down to my constituency last Friday as well, but unfortunately did not tell me that he was coming. If he had told me, I would have made sure that we went round an orchard and met a number of small farmers in the marshland part of my constituency. However, perhaps he can make up for it by coming again in the future.
      Mr. Greg Knight: Take him foxhunting.
      Mr. Bellingham: I certainly will. It would be good for him to see what happens on a foxhunt, because I doubt whether he has ever been on one.
      In his concise and excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey said that farmers are demoralised and confused. Most are doing their level best to cope in extremely difficult circumstances. He was right to quote from the Curry report, which, on page 72, says:
      "We recommend that Government develop and publish a strategy for implementing forthcoming environmental Directives."
      If only they had a strategy for this particular directive. The report continues:
      "Besides describing how progress on meeting each Directive's environmental objectives is to be achieved, monitored and reported on, the strategy should include a regulatory impact assessment based on cost-benefit analysis covering the impact on farms."
      That is very well said.
      Of course the industry will go along with these regulations. However, it is crucial that they receive the assurances for which we have asked.
      4.58 pm
      Paddy Tipping: This is an important debate in terms not just of the regulations before us but of the wider debate about the nature and purpose of the countryside. That debate has permeated the Chamber this evening.
      There has been some talk about how the regulations will affect land values. I am firmly on the side of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) in believing that

      495
      the NFU's assessment may be exaggerated. Like him, I think that there may be effects on particular farms, but in general I do not think that there will be any effect on land values.
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The figure may be exaggerated or it may not be. I was asking the Minister to make sure that he had formed a clear impression of the likely or possible impact on land values, given that they underpin so much in rural England.
      Paddy Tipping: The Minister will speak for himself, but I see no evidence of agricultural land values falling. I accept that farming is in crisis and that farm incomes are very low, but I see no sign that land values will fall. I am certainly of the view that the regulations will have no effect whatsoever, except in the smallest case.
      The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) spoke properly and wisely about adding value to the countryside, which is what I want to discuss. The real lesson to be drawn from the foot and mouth crisis is its effect on visitors to the countryside. When the footpath network was closed and people no longer visited the countryside, the rural economy was in crisis. Farmers who are concerned about the regulations—they have a right to be—should be concerned about the need to add value to the countryside so as to create a backdrop that people will wish to visit. In principle, it must be right that we should conserve high-value landscapes. We should build on work that hon. Members have done to safeguard hedgerows, look after stone walls and ensure that land that is uncultivated and has high value is maintained. We may argue about the scale, but in principle that must be the right thing to do.
      I have two questions for the Minister. First, the principle of the regulations as they stand is right, but there is a lack of clarity. It would be helpful for people who have concerns if what is meant by the high-value land that is specified and which lies behind the regulations is spelled out more clearly.
      Secondly, conservation bodies have a view about how they are to be consulted. The prime interest is the landowner, but other bodies will wish to be consulted. The regulations are clear. The Countryside Agency and the Environment Agency, for example, are to be consulted, but other bodies such as the wildlife trusts and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which have already been mentioned, have enormous significance and can contribute to the debate. Those organisations have been consulted about the preparation of the regulations, but will they be consulted as a matter of course when applications are made?
      We should study the regulations carefully and get the balance right—the balance to create a living and changing countryside. The countryside does not stand still; it will always be changing. The farmer and the landowner are the major stakeholders, but they know that their livelihoods and interests depend on a countryside where the landscape is lifted and the environment enhanced. If properly applied, the regulations can help them. That is why I welcome the commitment that the regulations will be reviewed in 18 months.
      It is important that we get right the balance between the people who live and work in the countryside and those who want to visit it and who bring wealth and prosperity
      496
      to the area. One aspect of this debate that has concerned me is the persistent and misguided argument of those who try to set urban and rural interests against each other. That argument will lead to destruction and pain. A sensible way forward is to see and work for a balanced approach, which adds value to both parties.
      5.4 pm
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: I have an interest, in that I became a farmer last year—as declared in the Register of Members' Interests. I was one of the people referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). I was extremely surprised; I had no idea that the environmental impact assessment regulations would be introduced this year until I heard about today's debate.
      I use my farm as an example to illustrate the problems of other people because I am fortunate—I do not rely on farm income for my livelihood. Fortunately, the good burghers of Blaby keep voting for me to come to this place. I hope that they continue so to do. I want to farm my land in an environmentally friendly way that conserves and encourages wildlife and birdlife.
      My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey spoke well, and I agreed with him. He and I go back a long way on this issue and have had many discussions about it in the past. I remind the House that he was an instigator of the Hedgerows Bill in 1993. It was not successful but became the basis for further measures. He has an honourable record on wildlife and countryside conservation.
      When I was younger, I used to be outraged by the destruction that some farmers wrought on the countryside. They ripped out hedges wholesale. Many of us have seen how the landscape was changed by the work of farmers, but that is in the past.
      Mr. Wiggin: Having seen the way the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food handled the foot and mouth crisis, does my hon. Friend agree that farmers plough up moorland and hillside because they are so frightened about the way that they will be treated? It may offer them their only route of escape.
      Mr. Robathan: I agree with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, the regulations point to that result. Farmers feel harassed by their own Department. The fact that it is called DEFRA rather than MAFF makes things seem even worse. Many people call it the Department for the End of Farming and Rural Activity.
      I used to be outraged by the activities of farmers, but actually most farmers are just trying to make a living. There should be education and incentive, not over-regulation. My father-in-law was a farmer and my brother-in-law is a farmer and I know many farmers in my constituency. They are not all grain barons, riding about in Range Rovers; many of them are ordinary people who like working on the land. They are using their best endeavours to try to work the land, but they are under huge pressures to make a living—as I said earlier in an intervention on the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). When they are going bankrupt, no one could expect them to do anything but maximise the potential of their land.
      The regulations in this European directive bring a wry smile to my face because they amount to gold-plating. I do not think that the directive was intended to have that

      497
      effect—although one might say that it is getting into the nooks and crannies of everyday life. The regulations are gold-plating that will make life more difficult for farmers.
      The point that I want to home in on is the countryside stewardship scheme, which was mentioned by two of my hon. Friends. I want to pursue that scheme because I want to make my land more environmentally friendly. As the Minister knows, a large number of farmers throughout the country are also adopting the scheme, because almost all farmers appreciate wildlife. They appreciate hedges. They like to see the land farmed in an environmentally friendly way, but they have to make a living. The countryside stewardship scheme has allowed them to do that, and to reverse some of the destruction that has taken place in the past.
      I want to pursue the scheme—as do many farmers— but I have been put on the back foot: I am concerned that if I take up the scheme, I shall end up tying my hands and the hands of farmers who farm my land in the future. The regulations mean that DEFRA will be able to interfere when anyone wants to make further changes on their land. That is a real concern.
      Will the Minister tell us whether he believes that the regulations will discourage people from taking up the countryside stewardship scheme? I fear that they may. If so, what mitigation will he offer to encourage what has been a most successful scheme?
      Overall, the great concern is that this further regulation will interfere with the livelihoods of people who are already on the cusp of bankruptcy. The industry is in real crisis. We are talking about ordinary people who work all the hours that God gave. I have seen the man who was ploughing my land working at 10 o'clock at night with headlights on. I, too, work at 10 o'clock at night, but not nearly as hard as a farmer does. These people work all the hours that God gave to make a livelihood, yet we are making their lives even more difficult.
      I applaud the desire in Brussels and in London for greater environmental aspects to our farming. I applaud the desire for greater conservation, and greater help for wildlife in the countryside. I do not, however, want to see greater interference, and what worries me about the regulations is that they represent further interference that will—
      Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as he had not finished his sentence. I want to ask him a question about the compliance cost of this new environmental impact assessment. If we continue to farm land that is currently being cultivated, and which would otherwise have been set aside or used for other environmentally friendly purposes, we shall be putting more food into a market that is perhaps incapable of absorbing it, thus forcing prices down even further. Farmers would do that, however, because they would be frightened of getting hit by an environmental statement, which the Secretary of State estimates will cost between £2,000 and £3,000 to prepare. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?
      Mr. Robathan: That is a rather big issue, and I do not want to go too far down the line with it at the moment. I agree with my hon. Friend entirely, though, because that
      498
      is what this is all about. Farmers want to farm; that is why they go into farming. They want to get out there and work the land and work with their animals; they do not want to deal with regulations, which always take time. More and more regulations will take more and more time. A common complaint from farmers is that they are submerged in paperwork, and unable to get out and do the fanning. Candidly, many of them were not brought up in a world of form filling, and they find it very tiresome. I find it frightening when my hon. Friend talks about costs of £2,000 or £3,000.
      I am sure that the Minister will say that the regulations will not put a burden on farmers. I have not read his speech, but I can guess that that is what he will say. I would just draw his attention to paragraph 6, which sums up my argument:
      "No person shall begin or carry out a relevant project"—
      that covers just about any improvement to the land—
      "without first obtaining consent from the Secretary of State."
      That is a fairly burdensome requirement.
      5.12 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I welcome the broad consensus that the regulations have benefits in relation to good agricultural practice and to the protection of our habitats. I understand the points that have been made by the hon. Members for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), and for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), and I shall try to address them.
      The regulations were introduced in 1985, and amended by directive 97/62/EC. Equivalent regulations are being made in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. The hon. Member for East Surrey asked about the scale of the problem, and why the measures were introduced. The countryside survey produced by the Countryside Agency estimated that acid grassland has been reduced by 10 per cent in the last 10 years, and that calciferous grassland— which is very species-rich—has been reduced by 18 per cent. It also estimated that about 10,000 hectares of land that might fall into that category are lost annually. A significant amount of damage is, therefore, being done.
      The Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whose membership included Conservative Members, produced a unanimous report which pressed DEFRA—or MAFF, as it then was—to introduce these regulations as soon as possible, because of the impact of ploughing up downland and river valley land, and because of the problem of run-off and soil erosion, and the effect that that had on flooding. Indeed, in my travels following the floods of 2000 I visited people whose homes had been swamped with mud run-off from ploughed downland that had for a long time been grassland. Turning it into downland was probably not the most appropriate use for it. There are therefore very good reasons for measures such as these.
      I am pleased that hon. Members recognise that the language in the guidelines is non-confrontational. The talk is of co-operation and the aim is to make the measure work. I am pleased also that the hon. Member for Gordon and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood recognise

      499
      that within 18 months there will be a formal review of the way in which the regulations are working. The idea is to take up the points that have been raised and to ensure that the measures have bedded down. We need to learn from the experience of operating environmental impact assessments whether there is a need to change or fine-tune the regulations. We are trying to be proportionate and co-operative.
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The fact that the regulations will be reviewed is most welcome. The Minister says that there are good reasons for introducing them. It is impossible to resist the temptation to ask why, if that is the case, he has waited to be threatened with infraction procedures by the European Union before doing so.
      Mr. Morley: From my days in the old Ministry of Agriculture, I have asked for the regulations to be introduced. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there has been a great deal to do, and I point out that there has been over a year of consultation on the measure, and rightly so. It makes a big change; it is complex, and I make no apologies for the length of the consultation.
      I am a little surprised at the hon. Gentleman's point, bearing in mind the fact that the measure appeared in 1985, and there was no sign of it being introduced until we began to make progress. He is right to say that there is a threat of infraction procedures, and we cannot ignore that, but I believe that the measure has an important role to play. It is important that we get it right, that it is proportionate and that we take on board the points that have been made about bureaucracy. We have been trying to do that in the consultation process.
      Hugh Robertson: Will the Minister give an undertaking—I ask not so much as a constituency MP but as the secretary of the parliamentary fruit group—that as part of the review in 18 months' time he will consider horticulture in particular? Many fruit farmers in my constituency and elsewhere produce their trees over a 16 or 17-year economic period and they are very worried about the effects of the regulations.
      Mr. Morley: I have not forgotten the point about orchards—I have here a note about it—and I assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that I shall come to it.
      The directive requires an environmental assessment to be carried out on projects that are likely to have significant environmental effects. Guidelines have been sent to all farms, and more detailed guidelines are available to all farmers. That information can be found on our website, to which I hope more and more farmers have access. Agriculture projects are the sole subject of the regulations, and other parts of the EIA directive have already been implemented. Town and country planning legislation deals with projects requiring planning permission, and other measures deal with specific matters such as forestry.
      We announced in the rural White Paper our intention to consult on implementation of the uncultivated land provisions of the EIA directive. As hon. Members have made clear, there is a strong general wish for farming to be environmentally responsible; indeed, our countryside stewardship schemes have been very popular and are
      500
      over-subscribed. That desire to be environmentally responsible is reflected in the five-point plan for wildlife-friendly farming drawn up by the NFU and English Nature, and I pay tribute to that. The statute that we are debating forms part of a wide spectrum of measures—voluntary or enforced through regulation where necessary—to ensure a sustainable future for our countryside and our farming industry.
      As I said, we have consulted widely on these measures: first on the options for implementation and then on the draft regulations and guidelines. We have been concerned throughout the process to find ways of accommodating and reconciling the need for proper environmental safeguards and the need to avoid excessive regulation and cost for farmers. We are very grateful to the statutory agencies and other organisations for their invaluable help in framing the new procedures.
      In the guidelines, we emphasise in particular the Department's intention to apply the measures in co-operation with farmers, wherever possible. If problems arise in implementing the EIA regulations when the farmer is considering changing the use of the land, we will discuss the issue. It is part of the procedures and guidelines that the farmers or landowners can contact our regional offices, and we will work with them to try to find a solution and give them whatever guidance we possibly can.
      I was asked whether we would be flexible in applying the guidelines and in the exact contents of the environmental statements, and I can certainly give that assurance. We will be flexible, especially in the bedding-down period when people have to get used to things. I repeat that the statements will be required only for projects that are likely to have significant environmental effects. We will use the full flexibility permitted under the directive in line with our principles of reasonable and fair legislation, so I give that assurance.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: The Minister will know that one of the points that is always made about such regulations is that there is not a level playing field. Can the Minister assure us that no significant change will be dealt with under these regulations that will not be covered by equivalent regulations on the continent? Are we covering any changes that they are not?
      Mr. Morley: I made a point of finding out what other countries are doing in relation to these regulations, because it is important that we examine how they are being applied elsewhere. The problem is that various countries have different regulations in the first place, so they are not strictly comparable. For example, in many European countries, farming comes within the planning guidelines. In our country, of course, many farming activities are exempt from the planning guidelines. In many countries, these regulations are applied through the planning process, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is somewhat more onerous and restrictive than the way in which we propose to apply these regulations. It is not right to think that other countries are much more lax about these regulations and do not apply them.
      I was asked about the thresholds. We consulted on them in some detail and, in the end, we did not think that specific thresholds would be appropriate because even

      501
      small projects in certain situations can have significant effects. That point was made by the hon. Member for Gordon. Small areas can have significant biodiversity importance, and damaging small areas has a cumulative effect. That is why we think that we should have a threshold, but I hope that our procedures will be quick in dealing with small areas, so that farmers and landowners will not find them onerous.
      We have clearly stated that the guidelines for routine farming, such as maintenance of drainage works and watercourses, are not subject to the EIA procedures.
      Orchards may be subject to the EIA regulations if they contain old grassland that has not been ploughed for many years. We are thinking of ancient orchards, not modern orchards, in which intensively managed trees generally need to be replanted. They would normally not come within the scope of the EIA regulations, but there are some important orchards that have not been ploughed and contain very old trees, and they are often not commercial.
      Indeed, the orchards that I saw in Norfolk had been entered into our stewardship scheme because of their biodiversity value. That is an option for their owners. In other parts of the country, I have seen commercial orchards where organic apples were grown for Bulmers. Those apples received a premium and the orchards were also in our stewardship scheme. There are options for such orchards, but they are the exception in modern fruit management, rather than the norm.
      Hugh Robertson: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Morley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me; I really must get on because I want to deal with a range of issues. I will happily answer any question that he may have if he writes to me.
      Concern has been expressed about the agri-environment schemes. I understand that issue, but there is no evidence to show that it is putting people off those schemes. We will keep those schemes and the effect that they may have on other schemes under careful review. We are committing ourselves to a major review of the schemes in the light of the recommendation by the commission on farming and food that we should consider restructuring the way in which agri-environment schemes are applied. There is a great deal of sense in that recommendation and, although the construction of such schemes will be challenging, I am more than willing to address seriously the commission's recommendation.
      We also intend to renew schemes for those who have entered into countryside stewardship schemes, and who may now be worried that, because of the regulations, we will not be interested in renewing the scheme. That is not our intention. We intend there to be a long-term investment in the countryside, and a long-term partnership with landowners and farmers. We will, of course, renew such schemes.
      We cannot give a general undertaking to disregard the environmental impact assessment procedures if land is taken out of an agri-environment scheme. First, some of the land may have fallen within the scope of the EIA whether it was in the scheme or not. Secondly, there may have been a great deal of public investment to help to
      502
      create environmental enhancements. It is not unreasonable that an assessment should be carried out when changes are proposed for the management of that land.
      On set-aside, I can confirm that the directive does not define key terms such as "uncultivated". We do not intend to include generally within the scope of the EIA directive land that has been set aside for a period from arable cropping. I wanted to give that reassurance.
      In relation to appeal procedures, we want to be flexible about the type of procedure to be used in each case. The appellant will always have the right to be heard at a hearing or a local inquiry, and the Secretary of State's powers to determine an appeal can be delegated to an independent appointed person. That is provided for in the regulations. We believe that the provisions are fair, and, as with all aspects of the regime, they will be reviewed to see how they operate in practice. I expect the delegated procedure to be used in many cases in reference to an independent person.
      On awareness of the new procedures, I mentioned that we have sent an explanatory leaflet to all registered agricultural holdings in England and more detailed guidelines are freely available. A dedicated helpline is operating for telephone inquiries.
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I seek clarification from the Minister. I think I heard him say that an appeal could be heard by an independently appointed person. However, page 13 of the guidance says:
      "The Secretary of State may personally decide your appeal, or appoint someone to decide it on his or her behalf".
      Surely, if that person is appointed by the Secretary of State, they are not independently appointed.
      Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman will find that that is the terminology. Those who decide appeals, throughout the range of appeals within DEFRA, are all appointed by the Secretary of State in that respect. However, the bodies are independent, and the appeal would be independent and accountable to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman need not get too concerned about that—the appeal would be heard properly and professionally, and I do not see a problem with that. However, to return to the point, a review will take place in 18 months, and if people are not satisfied with the appeals procedure, and they feel that it needs to be changed, we shall consider that.
      Some of the arguments are reminiscent of those used in relation to the Hedgerows Bill which the hon. Gentleman promoted. As he will know, I dealt with that Bill as an Opposition Member, and I fully supported it. It is a case of, "Now the regulations are in, they are nowhere near as difficult as people thought they were going to be." Farmers and landowners have learned to operate within the rules, and the rules have been made as flexible and realistic as possible to achieve the balance that people have talked about.
      On land prices, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood is right. There is no sign that land prices have fallen; indeed, the opposite is the case. Some fanning organisations have speculated that the measures that we are considering might devalue land. However, I do not believe that, because we are now entering a new era in which production subsidies will inevitably be scaled down. We cannot say for how long the arable area payments will exist. Much of the value of land is

      503
      underpinned by such things as its IACS—integrated administration and control—value, for example. As those subsidies are scaled down, more and more money will go into agri-environment schemes; more environmental schemes will be available. Thus, we have land which in the long term will devalue in the sense of the subsidies that it attracts, and land which under countryside stewardship schemes will maintain its value by attracting maintenance and support payments. I believe—I speak personally rather than on any analysis—that the long-term value of land that has environmental value will be higher than that currently underpinned by subsidies, which is unsustainable. Although we shall have to see, I do not believe that the measures will have a long-term effect on the value of land.
      The introduction of the regulations for uncultivated land and semi-natural areas plays a vital part in the agenda for sustainable development, which is very much at the heart of the new Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We attach central importance to it and I believe that the approach commands wide public support. I appreciate that just about everyone who has spoken in the debate supports the principles of the regulations, although not unreasonably has questions about the details. I believe that we can resolve the issues that have been raised reasonably and proportionately, and make the regulations work with the minimum of inconvenience to farmers and landowners.
      In the end, the regulations will enhance the value of our countryside and the protection of important habitats, and be of value and assistance to those who are the guardians of the countryside—those who work the land and who I am sure share our desire to ensure that it is managed in a proper, sustainable way for future generations. The measure will protect the value of the landscape and the biodiversity of our countryside.
      5.32 pm
      Mr. Peter Ainsworth: This has been an extremely useful and helpful debate. Hon. Members have raised a number of points that are important to those on whom the regulations will bear. The Minister's concluding remarks will be read with great care by people who manage the land and by environmentalists. One lesson that we are all learning is that the interests of those two sets of people are becoming more and more intertwined. I sincerely hope that the regulations will help to advance that process and not stand in its way.
      I am delighted that the regulations will be reviewed so thoroughly after 18 months. I thank my hon. Friends who have taken part in the debate, which has been a constructive afternoon's work. I am grateful to the Minister for the several assurances that he has given.
      Mr. Morley: As I did not answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, I want to take the opportunity to emphasise that the review will of course be open to all interested parties, including conservation organisations and the Wildlife Trust, as well of course as farming and landowners organisations.
      Mr. Ainsworth: The Minister has more velvet gloves in his pocket than I originally imagined.
      Question put and negatived.

      Line of Route
      5.33 pm
      Mrs. Marion Roe: I beg to move,
      That this House approves the First Report from the Administration Committee on The Summer Line of Route—The 2001 Opening and Proposals for the Future (House of Commons Paper No. 433).
      This is the fourth time, and perhaps the last for the time being, that I have come before the House to present a report of the Administration Committee on the summer opening of the Line of Route. I should like to begin by expressing my thanks and those of the Committee to all those staff of both Houses of Parliament whose hard work contributed to the success of the 2001 opening. The efforts of the visitor manager, the Serjeant at Arms, the director of catering services, the director of finance and administration, and their respective staffs, the security force and the blue badge guides are very much appreciated. I also thank my colleagues on the Administration Committee for their contributions to the report, which was agreed unanimously, and the Leader of the House for making time available for this debate.
      On the report, hon. Members will have noted my Committee's two main conclusions: that the 2001 opening was a great success and that, as a result, the summer opening of the Line of Route should be made permanent. As it outlines, Line of Route tours were offered to the public between Monday 6 August and Saturday 29 September 2001, with the exception of Friday 14 September when hon. Members returned to debate the terrorist outrages in the United States. Some 86,284 visitors toured the Line of Route over that period, an increase of 110 per cent, over visitor numbers in the summer of 2000. A further 12,500 people visited Westminster hall and Portcullis House free of charge during the London open house weekend.
      The business plan for the 2001 opening specified a challenging target of 85,000 visitors. That the number of visitors exceeded that, despite the problems dogging the tourism industry last summer, is a sign of how well the tours were received. In fact, sampling of visitor response cards and comments in the visitors' book showed that 95 per cent, of those responding said that the tours had greatly exceeded their expectations.
      My Committee considered a selection of comments from the visitors' book and I can confirm that the feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with many stressing the importance of the summer opening continuing. Received wisdom in the tourism industry suggests that each satisfied visitor may recommend the visit to 10 others, creating a vast potential demand for the Line of Route. If, however, we are to sustain a high level of visitors, it is crucial that the marketing operation begins as soon as possible, which is why I am so grateful for this early debate.
      As the summer opening has run successfully for two summers, we recommend that it be placed on a permanent footing. It would send out the wrong signal about Parliament's accessibility and desire to engage the public were we to decide not to continue with the immensely popular tours. Such a decision would not be understood.
      We are not implying that all possible lessons have been learned over the past two years, but if the summer opening is made permanent, it will create a stable and certain basis

      505
      on which officials of both Houses can best plan and carry out the summer opening. For example, criticisms of the summer opening were mainly about ticketing arrangements which, as any hon. Member who wandered through Westminster Hall this summer will have noticed, were less than ideal. In the context of a permanent summer opening, House officials will be able to review options for the permanent siting of a ticket office, which will address the problems observed this summer. Of course, my Committee will expect to be kept fully informed of the deliberations and plans of officials.
      Hon. Members can be assured that the Committee was adamant that the summer operation must operate within certain constraints. The Palace of Westminster is primarily a place of work and the summer opening must not interfere with that work or constrain the ability of either House to sit at any time. This summer's events, with the recall on 14 September, reinforced the importance of that criterion. Arrangements must not constrain the Parliamentary works programme; nor must they impinge on the current rights of Members to sponsor visits to the Palace or on the important work of the parliamentary education unit. Our report laid down a fourth criterion, which was of course implicit at the time of previous openings: that any arrangements for the summer opening must not impede the application of appropriately high levels of security within the parliamentary estate.
      I now turn to the thorny issue of ticket pricing. I realise that views differ on both sides of the House. Members will recall that both trial summer openings operated to a planned deficit. The £3.50 ticket price reflected only the charge for the blue-badge guide; the rest of the operating costs were met by the merchandising operation and a net sum from the Votes of both Houses—limited to £232,000, with the Commons taking a 60 per cent, share. Effectively, through the House Votes, the United Kingdom taxpayer subsidised each visitor to the summer Line of Route. In 2000 the notional subsidy per head was £6.26; in 2001 that was reduced to £2.31, largely owing to increased ticket revenues and savings on overheads.
      Of course there is always scope for greater efficiency, but the fact remains that should the agreed deficit approach be continued, the United Kingdom taxpayer will continue to subsidise summer visitors, at least half of whom are thought to be from overseas. For that reason my Committee recommends that visitors be charged a realistic rate for summer tours of the Palace—a price that would recoup the costs of the summer opening.
      I make no apologies for repeating what was said in the Committee's report, as it is crucial.
      "We are committed to the principle of free democratic access to the Houses of Parliament".
      That is in paragraph 23. Paragraph 24 states
      "we do not believe that charging a realistic price for summer tours of the Palace encroaches upon the rights of the public to visit Parliament".
      I remind Members of the many opportunities our constituents have freely to view this place at work, and to engage with their Members of Parliament by listening to debates, attending meetings of Standing and Select Committees, meeting their constituency Members, participating in sponsored line-of-route tours, taking part
      506
      in lobbies and participating in education-unit activities. Nothing in our proposal would impinge on any of those crucial rights. We propose the charging of a fair price for additional access—and a guided tour—when the House is not sitting, and an end to the subsidy of visitors and tourists by taxpayers.
      We estimate that the charges would be £7 for adults and £3.50 for those receiving concessions. Carers and the under-fives would not be charged, and we envisage discounts for family groups. I invite Members to compare those charges with charges for similar attractions in London. For example, Buckingham palace charges £11.50 for adult admission, Westminster abbey charges £9, and St Paul's cathedral charges £7.50 for admission and a guided tour.
      I hope Members will agree with me, and with my Committee, that our proposed charges for tours guided by professional blue-badge guides through this wonderful building still represent value for money. The ticket price will cover the cost of employing guides and of additional security, and additional staff costs. I am thinking of ticketing facilities and extra costs imposed on the parliamentary works directorates resulting from the summer opening.
      Any revenue from merchandising could in future be ploughed back into improvements in the infrastructure and facilities of the Line of Route. As Members will see in the report, the merchandising operation in 2001 learned from that of the previous year and offered a reduced, but more popular, number of souvenir lines for sale. Although there was a net profit of £10,000, there is still scope for a higher spend per visitor. Accordingly, we have suggested that a new souvenir range addressing the wants of summer visitors be considered.
      Hon. Members will no doubt ask themselves about the impact of any modernisation initiative. The Leader of the House has already helpfully stated that the recess this summer will follow its usual pattern, so the question does not arise for 2002. We rely a great deal on the flexibility of our officers and staff. I am confident that, should the pattern of the summer recess alter, it is possible for the summer opening to operate around it. The infrastructure of the summer Line of Route does not demand a long period of setting up or striking, as was shown when the House sat one day in September last summer. It would be possible to open the Palace to visitors in August and again in October.
      My Committee expects to be kept fully informed of the plans of the Line of Route steering group to that end. As hon. Members will know, any decision on the operation of the Line of Route must be agreed by the House of Lords. Throughout our deliberations, we have kept the House of Lords Administration and Works Sub-Committee fully apprised of progress and our conclusions. I understand that that Committee awaits the decision of the House of Commons on the future of the Line of Route with interest.
      I do not wish to detain the House further, but I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the unanimous report of my Committee. Should it be approved, we can look forward to many more visitors enjoying the tours of the Palace and all its splendours, and finding out more about the work that we all do here. I commend the report to the House.
      5.47 pm
      Martin Linton: I have recently re-read the debate of 26 May 1999, when the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) tabled a memorable amendment, which was accepted. Before coming to the House with proposals, it was incumbent on members of the Administration Committee to ask whether we had met the concerns of everyone who spoke in that debate and whether they would be happy with our arguments.
      I must admit that I found it a little difficult to fathom some of the arguments advanced in that debate. For instance, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) who, sadly, is not here, explained that he had visited 30 state capital buildings in the United States, and looked forward to visiting the remaining 20; they were all free so, by extension, our Parliament should always be free to visitors. He did not mention the fact that some of those buildings are not the tourist attraction that the House of Commons is; never mind.
      Having tried to fathom the right hon. Gentleman's argument, I moved on to that advanced by our former colleague, Dale Campbell-Savours, who represented Workington. He recounted an incident in which a senior Member tapped him on the shoulder after he had introduced a particularly incendiary and revolutionary proposal to start sitting at 10 o'clock and finish at 6, and said
      "You cannot change things … that have been traditions for decades."— [Official Report, 26 May 1999: Vol. 332, c. 404.]
      Mr. Campbell-Savours apparently took that advice and believed that it would be wrong to have a summer opening of Parliament. Again, I found it difficult to understand his reasoning.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) recounted that when he was a lad in Wimbledon he travelled up to the House of Commons in summer and visited it for free. He argued that war memorials were free, so Parliament should always be free for visitors. He failed to reveal the fact that it is still free to visit Parliament whenever the House is sitting. However, the Committee has been able to deal with the argument that he advanced.
      The hon. Member for North Cornwall, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will no doubt explain to the House how far we have been able to allay his fears. I can only say in advance of hearing what he has to say that he seemed previously to have two main arguments. First, he argued that the summer opening, which had been proposed but had not yet happened, might be the thin end of the wedge and that we might end up charging people to visit at Easter, Whitsun or Christmas. Indeed, he seemed to fear that we might even charge them for visiting while the House was sitting. I hope that he feels reassured that that has not happened. Despite two summer openings, people have not been charged outside the period when the House has traditionally been closed anyway. I hope that he acknowledges that the policy has not so far been the thin end of any wedge.
      As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's other fear was that the change would lead to the contracting out of many of the services involved, which are better performed by servants of the House. I do not know whether he objects to the use of Ticketmaster to issue the tickets for tourists, but apart from that, I think that all the other services have been provided in house. The report does not propose mass
      508
      contracting out, but in any case, I do not know whether that is still a live fear in his mind. I shall be interested to hear whether he still has any of the concerns that he expressed in speaking to his amendment.
      In so far as other speakers expressed concerns, they related mainly to the analogy with free access to museums. As I have a very modest role at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I felt that there was an onus on me to consider whether, as we have now introduced free entry to national museums— I am glad that we have done so— the same principle should apply to the House of Commons. I see a world of difference between the two. Museums and galleries are sources of information that one visits not only once in one's life, but regularly. The reason why we believe in free access to museums is the same as the reason why we believe in free access to information and knowledge: museums and galleries are there to inform. The same principle has never been applied to heritage sites. For instance, the Tower of London is a heritage site. English Heritage has many sites where it charges the public for access. Nobody has ever suggested— I have never heard such a proposal from the hon. Gentleman or anyone else— that it is wrong to charge for access to such a site, whether it is Old Sarum at Salisbury or anywhere else. There is a difference in principle.
      There is still free access to Parliament as a working building. People can sit in the Strangers Gallery, attend a Committee sitting or see their MP. The only thing for which there is a charge— it applies at any time of year— is a guided tour. When this place is open, people are charged only for the tour. The principle that the Committee seeks to establish is that in the one recess in which the House would normally be closed to the public, the small on-cost of making tours possible should be borne by the person who enjoys the tour.
      That principle is also accepted by the British museum. People can visit for free, but if they want a guided tour of the museum, they pay a fee of £8. People can visit the British library for free, because it is a library, but if they want a tour, they pay a charge to cover the cost. People can visit Somerset house for free if they are visiting it on business, but if they want a tour, they pay. Indeed, the same is true across the square in Westminster abbey. Worshippers visit the abbey for free, but if people want to visit as tourists, they pay £9. We are simply abiding by that principle. The House of Commons is open in the summer. As a Member who represents a nearby constituency, I come here every weekday apart from, perhaps, during a fortnight in August. The place is open and I can take people around the building. I can use it all the time, but it is not open to the extent that it could deal with a constant stream of tourists without employing extra staff.
      When I first came here, I thought that it was a crying shame that the place was closed throughout August. Every day thousands of tourists milled around Parliament square looking rather puzzled because the House of Commons, which they had imagined they could visit, was closed. Because of that strange anomaly, the House was persuaded to open— in a half-hearted way in my opinion— on a trial basis in the summer of 2000.
      Tickets were available only in advance. People had to telephone. They could not come to the House of Commons and buy a ticket. About 95 per cent. of foreign tourists will go to the place they want to visit and buy a

      509
      ticket there. Under that scheme, they had to telephone in advance, pick the tickets up in Regent street and find their way here. The Speaker had to intervene during that summer because it was so ridiculous that people could not buy tickets. She insisted that some tickets were available at the House.
      In the summer of 2001, the scheme was, I am glad to say, repeated. This time there was a ticket office on-site. As a result, the number of visits more than doubled. Bizarrely, the ticket office was sited in Westminster Hall. People had to go through security at St. Stephen's entrance to get into Westminster Hall, queue for a ticket, go back out of St. Stephen's entrance, go to Black Rod's entrance, queue again and go through security again before starting their visit. Not surprisingly, they found that very frustrating but that was the only way it could be done, given the fact that the House had not agreed to a permanent scheme.
      In the summer of 2001 a flat-rate charge of £3.50 was levied, a modest sum when we consider that a visit to the Banqueting hall down the road costs £3.90 and the Banqueting hall is hardly more than a single room— a very nice room but it is not to he compared with the House of Commons. A visit to Westminster abbey costs £9, to the London Eye £9, and to Buckingham palace £11.50. A visit to a commercial tourist attraction such as Madame Tussaud's costs about the same, as does a visit to the Tower of London.
      Therefore, it is not surprising that the tourists who came here during the summer were happy. Indeed, they were ecstatic and flabbergasted. The survey of visitors shows that 95 per cent. said that the tour exceeded their expectations. Clearly, having only paid £3.50 they did not expect much. If one reads their comments, one will see that surprise coming through time and again. Despite 11 September, visitors filled 80 per cent. of available capacity over the whole summer. On many days there was queueing in Parliament square. A visitor from Virginia in the United States wrote,
      "Wonderful tour
      "PS I'm so glad I finally got in!"
      People's main complaint was not the charge of £3.50 but the fact that they had to wait so long to get in. By charging only £3.50, there was a loss of £200,000 on the operation. It seems extraordinary that anyone can operate a tourist attraction such as the House of Commons and make a loss. There were queues in Parliament square and £200,000 was stuffed into the pockets of overwhelmingly overseas tourists, who enjoyed coming here. Most people from this country will visit when entry, although not the tour, is free.
      We have established the principle that this is just to do with summer opening and the costs associated with keeping the building open when it otherwise would not be. We have established the fact that, in the rest of the year visits will be free; that the autumn educational tours will also be free; that even in the summer Members of Parliament can take guests around for free; that the only cost charged to the tourist is to cover the extra cost of keeping the House open that one month; and that the alternative is either to make a huge loss for no particular reason, or— this would be criminal— to close the building when hundreds of thousands of foreign tourists are in the
      510
      area. Given all that, I think that we have made a powerful case for charging a reasonable sum, which will still be modest when compared with all the neighbouring tourist attractions and cheaper than the Government charge for visits to most heritage sites.
      This is a phenomenally popular tourist attraction. I shall quote some of the comments made by visitors. I shall quote them in sequence, without editing them or leaving any out. They said, "The tour was magnificent", "brilliant", "Well worth visiting", "It would be useful to have a guide in Italian", "Excellent tour", "Great place to visit", "Wonderful tour". That last comment was from the Americans who said that they were glad to have finally got in. The comments continued, "Well worth a visit", "Most enjoyable", "Excellent tour", "very good", "very interesting" and so it goes on. There is not a single word of criticism, other than about the standard of the toilets.
      I am not saying that we should charge people more just because they enjoyed it, but since so many people want to come, they enjoyed it so much and the charge was so much less than for comparable places, it serves no purpose to charge a deliberately low or loss-making price. I hope that the Committee has persuaded those who had concerns before that there is no danger of extending this principle. It is different from the principle of free museums. It will enable us to open this place for the tens of thousands who want to come here in the summer, without imposing a cost on the taxpayer.
      6.2 pm
      Mr. Greg Knight: I pay tribute to the members of the Select Committee on Administration who have prepared the report. Most of the departmental Select Committees are high profile. Some of them appear to travel frequently and they are widely regarded as prestigious bodies. The domestic Select Committees do not have such a high profile and are sometimes taken for granted. They perform an essential role and, on behalf of the Opposition, I should like to express our thanks and appreciation to all members of those Committees, from whichever party, for their diligence, dedication and hard work.
      I am broadly supportive of the report and I shall not seek to divide the House. However, I have some concerns and wish to make a number of observations and comments. It is right that the Administration Committee has as its primary objective the smooth running of this building as a place of work and that any arrangements put in place for visitors must not constrain Members in the discharge of their duties. Also, any such arrangements during these difficult times, must not breach our security. In my view, such considerations must remain at the forefront of any debate on public access to the Palace of Westminster.
      The hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) will be pleased to know that I am also firmly of the view that the opening of the Line of Route for visitors who are not accompanied by their elected representatives should be self-financing. I do not see why the taxpayers of east Yorkshire, or anywhere else, should subsidise visitors from other parts of the country, most likely, it appears, from the affluent south-east, or from any country overseas, whether affluent or not.
      I refer the House to sections 2 and 5 of the report which deal with duration, volume and costs. I am pleased to see the Leader of the House in his place. My hon. Friend the

      511
      Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) referred to his recent modernisation proposals. However, I wonder whether the Committee— in calculating its conclusions and projections— properly reflected on the proposal, announced by the Leader of the House, to change the timing of our summer recess so that, apparently, the House will sit during September. That will surely have a serious effect on revenue, but it is likely to do little to reduce administrative costs.
      The report refers to setting up a permanent visitor management office, and we are entitled to ask whether that will prove viable. Given that the House will sit for three weeks in September from 2003 onwards, should not the proposal for a visitor management office be revisited and perhaps abandoned? We should not proceed with any proposal that would leave the British taxpayer out of pocket.
      The Committee might therefore need to re-cost some of its plans before announcing the ticket price, and I look forward to hearing the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne on that issue when she sums up. If the figures do not add up, we have two options: to increase the proposed admission fee to cover all the costs, or to abandon the experiment. I prefer the former option, but I would rather accept the latter than allow the proposals to become a drain on the public purse.
      I refer hon. Members to paragraph 25 of the report, and in passing I express my surprise— and some concern— at the following, almost throwaway sentence:
      "We suggest that the House authorities explore means of accepting payment in euros as well as sterling."
      No, no, no. Why on earth should we? This new, unliked and floundering currency is not legal tender in the United Kingdom, and I hope that it never will be. We should have none of it.
      Martin Linton: Does the right hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that every other tourist attraction in London will accept euros by next summer? It is completely contradictory to argue that we should be commercially minded and not accept an extra cost, but that we should not accept euros.
      Mr. Knight: In this House, we lead and not follow. If current trends continue, the euro equivalent of a £7 admission fee, if it were accepted in good faith on a Monday morning, might be worth only a fraction of that amount by the time the attendants have cashed up and got to the bank. Why should we have to stand any financial loss caused by a continuing lack of confidence in this dubious currency? The case has not been made for this mother of Parliaments to accept anything but our own currency from any visitor, and I hope that we shall hear no more of this unnecessary and rather offensive suggestion.
      The Line of Route to which the report refers is the long-established and widely accepted route that Members are accustomed to and prepared to tolerate. In paragraph 37, the Committee points out that it is not suggesting extending the route, and it is correct, as some Members might find that unacceptable. However, I am rather concerned about the wording. The steering group is expected to
      "keep this matter under review",
      512
      and apparently may decide to add to the Line of Route. I sincerely hope that no additions will be contemplated or authorised without reference to the Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne chairs, and ultimately to the House.
      As at present, the proposed Line of Route will end in New Palace Yard, which is the last area of the parliamentary estate that visitors see before they leave. For how much longer will it look as if it is part of a film set for a new production of "Steptoe and Son"? We are right to be concerned about security, but why should the House have to tolerate the hideous concrete blocks that are scattered seemingly willy-nilly across New Palace Yard? They are not present at the entrance to the Lords, where an altogether more satisfactory arrangement exists. There, a metal barrier drops flush to the ground when vehicular access is required. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne why an identical arrangement cannot be introduced here, and as soon as possible.
      Apart from blighting our grade I listed building, the blocks mean that negotiating access to and egress from New Palace Yard is like taking part in an advanced drivers obstacle course, especially for people driving wide and long motor vehicles. The blocks should go forthwith. If necessary, an increased police presence should be provided until a more sophisticated security scheme can be put in place.
      Subject to my comments being satisfactorily answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne when she replies, I hope that the House will agree to the report.
      6.10 pm
      Mr. Paul Tyler: I do not intend to follow the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) in his limousine, nor to respond just yet to the hon. Members for Battersea (Martin Linton) or for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), the Chairman of the Committee.
      By way of introduction, I want to say that, despite comments to the contrary about my past involvement in these debate, I yield to no one in my admiration for this place, as both building and institution. I want as many of my fellow citizens and visitors from other parts of the world to experience it to its full extent.
      However, people did not always admire this building. Yesterday's edition of The Times contained a reprinted leader that originally appeared on the same date in 1861. Headed "The Decay of Parliament", it stated:
      "It is fortunate that we English are not superstitious people. If we were given to omens we might be scared out of our senses by the decay of our Houses of Parliament. At a moment when representative institutions are breaking down in America, the House just newly built for the Lords and Commons is crumbling away in preternatural ruin."
      It went on:
      "At last, after some four centuries, Parliament was burnt out, and it was resolved to build a magnificent Palace expressly for the sittings of the Imperial Legislature. At a cost perfectly fabulous, the structure has been raised; but scarcely have the workmen quitted the building when its walls are found to be externally in a state of decay".
      The leader explained that a commission had been set up to travel the length and breadth of the British Isles to find appropriate stone with which to build this great institution. I do not know the membership of that commission, but I do know a little about how both ends

      513
      of this place work and I suspect that it contained a number of hon. Members. I suspect too that, as they went round the country, those hon. Members were more interested in making sure that stone from their particular areas was selected. As was remarked to me earlier today, they may also have discussed the matter over a great deal of claret.
      Apparently, the commission eventually recommended what was thought to be an
      "entirely new and imperishable stone, such as would last for ages without decay or repair … Commissioners were specially appointed to purvey this desirable material. After extensive and laborious researches, they succeeded in discovering a quarry which was said to satisfy the prescribed conditions, and the Houses of Parliament were erected accordingly."
      However, the 1861 leader added:
      "The river front of Sir Charles Barry's edifice bids fair to crumble away in the Thames within a few years after its completion."
      It concluded:
      "We must stop the decay somehow, for we certainly cannot afford new structures of that kind every 20 years."
      Fortunately, in more modern times we seem to have looked after the building rather better. It is in that context that the hon. Member for Broxbourne and her Committee— rightly, I believe— have sought ways in which more people can enjoy it. I have no disrespect for the work that the Committee has done, and any minor criticisms of the report that I may make should in no way be taken to seek to undermine that work.
      My first concern refers back to the debate mentioned by the hon. Member for Battersea. I am concerned that hon. Members should steer this exercise, whether it be temporary or permanent. Will the steering group, which is mentioned in passing, include members of the hon. Lady's Committee? It is important, for a number of reasons that have been adduced by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, that Members steer the exercise. It must not simply be left to the Officers. I hope that that will mean strict adherence to the principles set out in paragraph 14 of the report and the criteria in paragraph 23. They have been referred to already, and I believe them to be extremely important.
      This issue was at the forefront of Members' minds during the debate to which the hon. Member for Battersea referred. It is the thin end of the wedge in the way in which the House would be available to our constituents and in taking away from Members control over constituents' access. That is why I believe that in making a temporary expedient permanent, we should take stock of what is happening. The thin end of this wedge is still quite thin— the report's appendix refers to 26 full days and 20 half days. We must think hard about how that may be affected by the change in the recess arrangements in 2003.
      The hon. Member for Battersea referred to the extent to which what he called contracting out might take place. I call it old-fashioned privatisation. I know that under new Labour it is called contracting out, but to me it is privatisation, just as it was when the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was a Member of the last Conservative Government. I am glad that a major change of emphasis has taken place in 2001. The proportion of the income coming from the direct sales by the House has increased and sales by Ticketmaster,
      514
      the privatised institution outside the House, have gone down. In round figures, in 2000, Ticketmaster sold £115,000 worth of tickets, which decreased to £72,000 last summer, while our direct sales went up from £5,000 worth of tickets— this is just a temporary expedient— to £152,000. Those of us who want the House to have home rule over its own institution are reassured by that welcome change of emphasis.
      I accept the point made by the hon. Lady and her Committee that the subsidy from the House's Vote has been dramatically reduced, and that is to be welcomed. I accept that it would be reasonable to make it revenue-neutral in 2002 for the simple reason that we have, in capital expenditure, provided a wonderful new visitors centre. I hope that we will soon be allowed to look at it. We have spent quite a lot of money on a visitors centre which, while it will be of use to our constituents during other times of the year, will have an important role this year. If anybody asks why the price went up in 2002, the answer is because at long last we have some decent loos. The major criticism of many visitors is that we did not before, so that is a step in the right direction. That is the rationale for the increase in costs.
      I do not share the view of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire about the possible extension of the route into Portcullis House. Whenever I take constituents around the House I like them to see that we have good British architecture in 2001 and 2002 and that Parliament was rather more open-minded about commissioning good modern architecture than some of our immediate predecessors. The fact that Portcullis House was a runner-up for the Stirling prize last autumn was a great achievement not only for the architect but for the House. Many minor problems are being encountered there, such as handles on doors that no one with arthritis could possibly use to get out of an office in the event of fire. Basically, it is a handsome building which is doing its job well. I hope that the security problem, which I understand to be the major difficulty, can be resolved, and that we can include Portcullis House in the tour.
      I also hope that we will ensure that the security issue is dealt with properly as regards ticket sales. It makes no sense to bring people in through the security system to buy their ticket only for them to have to go out again. The hon. Member for Battersea made a fair point. The Committee is trying to deal with it and I hope that they do.
      Those are my two major qualms. Beyond those, the major concerns were expressed on both sides of the House when we voted on the proposal and when, uniquely in that Session, although those on both Front Benches were in favour of the motion, the majority of Members were on my side and voted for my amendment— I have never had that experience before and doubt that I will again.
      At the time of that debate there was a concern that we were commercialising the House. We were putting the work out to tender and reducing the respect that our fellow citizens and visitors would have for it. A sub-current of the debate was that many hon. Members thought that the Department of the Serjeant At Arms and other offices of the House were being privatised. Someone referred to it as a sort of "Ofdesk", and said that we would then have, "Housetrack" as a privatised company running the show. We have a visitor manager, which sounds as though we have gone down that track, but basically the

      515
      Administration Committee has done an important job on behalf of the House and has responded to the concerns and anxieties of hon. Members and I wish the report well.
      6.21 pm
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office: I am pleased to speak after the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), and to endorse what he said. I think that the concerns that were expressed in that debate three years ago have been met judging by the experiments of the past two summers and the report that is before us. I voted for the amendment that the hon. Gentleman proposed two and a half years ago.
      I will not be tempted by the Conservative spokesman, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), to debate the euro. Suffice it to say that I very much look forward to his hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) robustly defending the Administration Committee report in saying that the euro will be accepted as payment in the summer.
      First, I will make some general and brief remarks about the report and respond to the points made by the Liberal Democrat and Conservative spokesmen about the proposals for the summer recess. I am not convinced that it will be a major factor although I agree that the Administration Committee should address it. It is not proposed that the length of time that we are in recess should be reduced; the time will simply be configured differently. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire is right that there will be less time and, therefore, less revenue in September, but that will be compensated for by extra recess time in July. The revenue implications may even be positive— there may be larger tourist numbers in July than in September.
      First, I thank the hon. Member for Broxbourne and other members of the Administration Committee for the work that they have done over the years in producing the proposals for the summer opening. The matter was first debated in the House in 1999 when the Committee produced its earlier proposals. At that time, the Committee noted, in its first report for the 1998–99 Session, that
      "for over 20 years casual visitors and tourists have been denied the opportunity of visiting the Palace and of seeing the home of Parliament and its treasures. This is a situation which the Administration Committee wished to see changed to enable as many people as possible to see the two Houses of Parliament."
      The House then asked the Committee to re-examine its proposals for summer opening of the Line of Route. As has been explained today, hon. Members were concerned that there should not be undue restrictions on such an important symbol of democracy, not only for this country but for citizens throughout the world.
      In 1999, the House decided that it wanted other options to be explored and costed. When that had been done, it was decided to open the Line of Route with the arrangements that have been in force for the past two years. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne set out clearly, that decision has resulted in two extremely successful summer openings.
      516
      My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who is not with us today but is a member of the Administration Committee, described the £3.50 entrance fee as
      "the best deal in town."—[Official Report, 26 February 2001; Vol. 363. c. 674.]
      when we last debated this matter. Clearly, that assessment is endorsed by the Administration Committee in the report before us.
      Between summer 2000 and summer 2001, the number of visitors has more than doubled. More than 86,000 visitors toured the Line of Route in the summer of 2001 and 95 per cent. of those who commented considered that the tours had greatly exceeded their expectations, a similar satisfaction rate to that in 2000 despite the greatly increased pressure on capacity. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne said, the House should be grateful to all those—the staff of the House and the excellent guides— who have worked hard to make the openings such a success.
      The motion invites the House to make the opening of the Line of Route permanent, but to do so on a different basis from the experiment and to return to the principle that underlay the Administration Committee's first proposals. The suggestion is that the system should no longer rely on a subsidy from Parliament. The Committee recommended:
      "Ticket prices for visitors should be set at a level to recoup the cost of running the summer opening."
      As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the then Leader of the House, said when the principle of reopening was debated in May 1999, the matter is one of genuine difficulty and delicacy. She said:
      "No hon. Member would wish to see our constituents denied access to the House— that would be entirely contrary to our parliamentary tradition— but, equally, many may have reservations about whether British taxpayers would wish us to use their money to subsidise access to tourists, primarily from overseas, who may very well be charged for that access by tour operators and organisers outside this place who arrange such visits."—[Official Report, 26 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 390.]
      Now, as then, Members will have to decide where the balance lies. This is a House matter, and there is no Government position. If the House divides, I will vote for the report, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Broxbourne and other speakers in the debate.
      The Palace of Westminster is a workplace and those who visit to participate in our work, or to see us at work, will continue to have free access, as they should. It is easy to underestimate the extent to which the House is accessible during the times that we sit. Visitors are free to come to debates or attend Select Committee hearings as they wish. Our constituents can call for us in the Lobby. It is vital, as all speakers in the debate have said, that this free access to the proceedings of the House and its Committees is maintained. The Administration Committee's proposals reflect that.
      However, the House is not a museum; there is no such free access during the recess, when the House is not at work, and there has not been such access for many years. Indeed, before the Administration Committee raised the matter in 1999, access was limited to the guests of Members of Parliament, and to people on education unit tours. People want to see the Palace itself for many reasons—not only to see us at work.

      517
      People who visit in summer do so as tourists. There are good reasons for wanting to do that: a sense of history; a sense of the importance of our democratic institutions; and a desire to admire the work of Barry and Pugin. Those are all perfectly legitimate reasons; indeed, I do not see why we should not support the opening on the ground that we, as Parliament, should do our bit for the tourist industry in London.
      I hope that the tours will lead to a greater understanding of this place and I welcome that greater access on principle. None the less, as the Committee noted, it is reasonable to ask those who want to visit the Palace as a tourist attraction to pay a fee that covers the cost of so doing. The Administration Committee's proposals will simply mean that those who visit the Palace of Westminster during the summer reopening will not be subsidised by the UK taxpayer to do so. The entrance fee will be set at a level which recoups opening costs, not to make a profit.
      I hope that the new scheme will also have the effect that—as recommended by the Committee—the infrastructure and facilities of the Line of Route will be improved by ploughing back any proceeds from merchandising. It is far easier to support spending on improvements for visitors when the operation is not subsidised. That could benefit all visitors to the Palace, not just those participating in the tours.
      I share the widespread concern in all parts of the House that the facilities offered to visitors are far from adequate. Although the new visitor cafeteria, which is due to open shortly, will go some way towards improving that, far more could and should be done. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in his proposals to the Modernisation Committee, said:
      "A dedicated Visitor Centre could put the building and its history in the context of Parliament's place in the constitution and its importance as the expression of our democracy."
      I am grateful to the Administration Committee and especially to the hon. Member for Broxbourne for their continued examination of this issue. The proposals offer a fair balance between the need for access and the legitimate interests of the UK taxpayer so I support the motion.
      6.29 pm
      Mrs. Roe: The debate has been useful and interesting. I thank hon. Members for their views and comments. I shall respond briefly.
      I very much value the support of the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) as a member of the Administration Committee. In this debate, his analysis of past concerns was thorough and his responses and further comments were most constructive, especially as regards the recommended charging policy. I am most grateful to him for his contribution. He made one point that I should like to clarify. There are tours in Italian, French, German and Spanish, although demand has been higher than supply. Increasing—indeed, doubling—the amount of foreign language tours is being considered for 2002.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) was extremely kind in his comments about the work of the Administration Committee. On behalf of
      518
      the Committee, I thank him for that and for his support for the report. He sought reassurance on any proposals by the Line of Route steering committee relating to the extension of the route. We would certainly expect any such proposals to come back to the Administration Committee. There could be minor alterations owing to the works programme—the Committee will keep an eye on that—but any major initiative would certainly come back to us.
      My right hon. Friend mentioned payment in euros. Ultimately, that is not a matter for the Administration Committee, and I understand that the relevant House authorities are now considering the question of accepting payment in other major foreign currencies, which would have an effect beyond the Line of Route. I shall say no more on that matter.
      The Minister has already picked up the point about the possible changes—nothing has, after all, been agreed—to the timetable of the summer recess. I partly covered that matter in my opening remarks. If we have a permanent arrangement, we shall certainly be able to be flexible—more flexible, in fact—in relation to any changes that might be introduced. No such changes are expected for this year.
      I want to put on record that neither my Committee nor I are responsible for any large blocks of concrete or anything else in New Palace Yard. I am sure that those who are responsible for them will read with interest the comments of my right hon. Friend. I understand that the structures are not permanent, and I am sure that further proposals will be made on the matter in due course.
      I am most grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for his support for the report. He will acknowledge that we have in the past had many discussions on this issue, not only in the Chamber but outside as well, and I have been extremely grateful for his guidance on how best we might go about this business. I also welcome his comments about ticket sales, and about the input of the House of Commons. We were also pleased to see that input, and we hope to continue it and to make it even better.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to the extension of the Line of Route. The Committee has already considered Portcullis House in that regard, but there are security difficulties involved. It is important, therefore, that the Committee should consider any extension carefully, for reasons not only of security, but of any staffing costs that might be involved. This is not a closed door, however, and we shall return to this question if we feel that anything can be taken in that direction.
      On the hon. Gentleman's question of double entry, and the security issues surrounding people going in and out several times, we know that this has caused grave frustration for visitors. We are instructing the Line of Route steering committee to consider a ticketing office, which we hope would prevent such problems. That question will then have to come back to the Administration Committee for us to consider.
      Mr. Tyler: May I, as I omitted to do so earlier, apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who had hoped to be here? [HON. MEMBERS: She is behind you.] My hon. Friend has appeared. I now apologise for missing that fact.

      519
      The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) has just referred to the steering committee. I mentioned earlier that it was not clear to me, having read the report, whether there are Members of the House—or members of her Committee—on the steering committee, or whether it is just an officer group.
      Mrs. Roe: The group consists only of Officers, but of course they are accountable to the Administration Committee, so we shall consider carefully any proposals and recommendations that they make, and a case will have to be made for them. The membership of the steering group is listed in the report. They are very responsible Officers, and I am certain that any proposal that they make to the Administration Committee will have been thoroughly thought out.
      I am grateful to the Minister for his support, as I said, and for his confirmation that any modernisation proposals will not interrupt a Line of Route programme and that times will not be reduced but merely rearranged.
      I hope that the House will endorse the Committee's recommendations and allow the summer Line of Route to continue. The amazing reaction of visitors during the summers of 2000 and 2001, which, according to the visitor manager, is probably unrivalled by that of visitors to any other attraction in the country, points the way to the right decision, which is to acknowledge the success of the two trials and open the summer Line of Route to visitors on a permanent basis.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Resolved,
      That this House approves the First Report from the Administration Committee on The Summer Line of Route— The 2001 Opening and Proposals for the Future (House of Commons Paper No. 433).

      Richard Neale
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
      6.36 pm
      Mr. William Hague: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a most important constituency matter on the Adjournment of the House. I am most grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting the matter, as I know that he selects the subject to be raised on the Thursday Adjournment. For obvious reasons, it is a long time since I had the opportunity to raise a matter on the Adjournment of the House, and looking at the attendance for such debates, I think that this occasion will be much less noisy than those I was used to as Leader of the Opposition. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), for being present to listen and respond to my remarks.
      I want to talk about the case of the disgraced consultant, Mr. Richard Neale. It is a bizarre, tragic, deeply disturbing and utterly scandalous tale, and it will need briefly retelling in the course of my remarks, although it has become widely known. It is the story of a gynaecologist, Mr. Neale, who was struck off the medical register in Canada in 1985 because of serious incompetence after the death of two patients. He went on, despite warnings to this country from Canada, to practise in the Friarage hospital in Northallerton, which is the principal hospital in my constituency, for 10 years, leaving a trail of pain and sorrow behind him. He then went on, after being, in effect, dismissed—in practice, he was paid off—by that hospital, to practise in Leicester, the Isle of Wight and London, causing more pain and suffering to the women in his care, before finally being struck off for professional misconduct in the United Kingdom in July 2000, 15 years after he was struck off in Canada.
      This is an extraordinary story. For the Department of Health, of course, it is an embarrassment. For the patients, whom we might more properly refer to as victims, it is a personal or family tragedy. For the House, it should be a vital matter to ensure that these things do not happen again. Some of the facts of the case have become widely known. They have been documented on the BBC programme "Panorama" and in The Northern Echo, a newspaper in the north of England. They have been documented by the action and support group for medical victims of Mr. Neale. I pay tribute to the people who formed that group, particularly Sheila Wright-Hogeland, who has been its inspiration. The decision of the General Medical Council to strike Mr. Neale off the register, albeit 15 years after he was struck off in Canada, was widely publicised at the time.
      Some action has been taken; some procedures have been changed and, no doubt, some lessons have been learned. After many representations and requests, the Department of Health has established an investigation into what happened, although it was set out in a fairly low-key announcement last July, with carefully worked out terms of reference, which were set out in a Department of Health document to which I shall refer later.
      I put it to the Minister that the investigation announced so far is not adequate to the scale of the scandal. It has a limited time frame, which cuts off the investigation in

      521
      1995, yet there were things that should not have happened after 1995, or so it seems to me. It is confined to the local health services, yet this matter must concern the Department of Health and the General Medical Council. The terms of reference do not allow consideration of private patients, of whom there were a large number. The investigation will not have the power or terms of reference that it needs, and I believe that a public inquiry is needed.
      I have a suspicion that the Minister will say in response to those thoughts that this is a tragic story—it is—but that it is not on the scale of the Bristol babies or the Shipman scandals and that we cannot have a public inquiry into everything. I suspect that she will put it more delicately than that, because it will be set out in a slightly more roundabout way in her brief, but that will be the gist of what she says. Those in the Department of Health may think that we cannot hold a public inquiry into everything that goes on.
      I put it to the Minister that this is an almost uniquely chilling case because not only was serious harm done to unsuspecting patients over a long time, but warnings were given to some people, somewhere in Britain's health establishment. Some people working in the health service knew what was happening and how bad a doctor that man was, but nothing was done. So this case is different from many others, and it has not just come to light recently. For a long time someone, somewhere knew what was happening to women in the care of the health service in North Yorkshire and then elsewhere.
      The people affected want to know—I want to know, as the Member of Parliament for many of them—what really happened, and an inquiry into local services in a narrowly defined time frame with limited scope may well not be able to tell us all that we need to know about what happened or to ensure that every procedure has been put right and every precaution taken.
      Let me develop this story in a little more detail; I am fortunate in having a little more time for this Adjournment debate than would normally be available. Let me make it clear that in no way is this related to current controversies about the national health service. The NHS is committed to openness. In its document on clinical neglect the Department calls for
      "a more responsive and patient-focused approach to both complaints and clinical negligence claims handling".
      It calls for
      "greater openness in the NHS to concerns—so patients know that they will be heard, and organisations can learn from mistakes".
      So what I am calling for is exactly what the Department of Health has called for in its own document on clinical negligence.
      Let me also make it clear that, in general, I have nothing but praise for the staff and management of the Friarage hospital, Northallerton. It is often short of resources, but it has many excellent consultants. What happened in this case is in no way representative of the service that my constituents generally receive from consultants in that hospital or of the management decisions taken by the local management of that hospital—but it did happen, so we must face up to it.
      Neale's record in Canada should have rung "loud alarm bells"—not my words, but those of the chief medical officer and the former director of public health in
      522
      Yorkshire, Professor Liam Donaldson. The disciplinary committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario found Neale guilty of incompetence and professional misconduct after the death of a patient whom he was treating. The inquest into that death showed that he had given the patient a banned substance and then attempted to falsify her records. After the death of another woman on whom he had operated against medical advice, another doctor in British Columbia described Neale as
      "completely incompetent and incapable of making reasonable decisions about patients."
      Neale's record in Canada was one of dishonesty and clinical incompetence. The former head of obstetrics and gynaecology at the Prince George hospital in British Columbia, Dr. Lee, summed it up when he said that Neale
      "had no judgment … should never have become a surgeon."
      He continued:
      "He is a menace to every patient that he touches … he should never be allowed to practise."
      That was the opinion in Canada, and it was not that Neale was a bit of a problem and that he had merely given the wrong prescription now and again. In the opinion of his colleagues, he should never have been allowed to practice.
      Neale was struck off in resounding terms by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. He was charged with
      "failure to maintain the standard of practice of the profession … and conduct or an act relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional".
      This document—hon. Members will be relieved to know that I shall not discuss it all—details what Neale did that was appallingly wrong in the case when the patient died. The report concludes:
      "The Discipline Committee considered the evidence, found the allegation of incompetence against Dr. Neale to have been proved. In view of that finding the committee did not consider it necessary to make a finding on the second allegation. The committee did however consider the second allegation and, but for the finding of incompetence, would have found that the action of the doctor amounted to professional misconduct of a most serious nature."
      The chief of obstetrics and gynaecology reported that
      "due to repeated demonstration of poor judgment, Dr. Neale had been asked to withdraw from the call roster for Obstetrics and Gynaecology in their hospital. The other members of that staff did not wish to have Dr. Neale care for their patients."
      In British Columbia, as a result of poor judgment and poor procedure, all his privileges had been withdrawn in April 1979. That was the scale of the problem when this man practised medicine in Canada.
      Despite having been struck off the register in Canada, in 1985, incredibly, he was able to come to Britain and was employed as a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist in Northallerton. His references were checked in what was described as the usual way and only later did it appear that there were inaccuracies in them, with the misrepresentation of the status of some of his referees. He did not declare his past record to the Yorkshire regional health authority, but no additional attempt was made to find out the truth about him and there was no automatic checking of his Canadian history.

      523
      Sir Donald Irvine, president of the GMC, told "Panorama" in 1999:
      "If we knew today somebody had been struck off abroad we would want to be systematic about inquiries into that doctor's practice. I have to say that has not always been the case. I have to say that in the past our systems have been rather more unsystematic than we would accept as credible now. Even today the GMC is not obliged to investigate doctors struck off in non EU countries".
      No action was taken against Neale then because no one knew that he had been struck off the register in Canada.
      What is far more alarming is the fact that no action was taken when his record began to come to light in 1986 and he was allowed to carry on practising. Dr. Andy Sear, a former friend of Neale in Canada, telephoned the GMC in Britain in 1985 or 1986 to warn about Neale and his record in Canada. In a statement, Dr. Sear said:
      "I knew that Richard Neale had a job in Britain. I was alarmed that Richard was managing to work as a consultant and that he would harm other people. It was time to warn the authorities before it was too late. I called the General Medical Council in London and was put through to the registration department. I asked them if they were aware of the problems he had had in Canada …. They said thank you very much, very politely, for the contact. They said they were aware, but that having problems in another country did not preclude a doctor practising in Britain, if he hadn't done anything in Britain. I thought that was very high handed."
      So if a doctor had not done anything in Britain, the GMC would not necessarily want to take action.
      When the Yorkshire regional health authority found out about the allegations about Neale, it conducted an investigation. Dr. John Green, who conducted the investigation, said that he was
      "unaware that Richard Neale had been struck off and he didn't recall that the health authority knew that he had been asked to go for retraining to avoid being struck off."
      He said that
      "the investigators did not speak to the Canadian doctors who stopped Richard Neale operating in their hospitals in Canada, but we decided that they had been unduly conservative."
      Even when the regional health authority was made aware of Neale's record, instead of sacking him immediately and terminating his contract, he was able to continue to practise. The GMC was made aware of Neale's history by Dr. Green, but decided to take no action.
      This is a very serious matter. At no time were patients warned about Neale's record. If they had been, of course, they would not have accepted treatment from him. Because no action was taken against Neale, he was also able to work at other, private hospitals—based on a supposedly unblemished record at the Friarage hospital in Northallerton.
      So the man went on. He even applied to go back on the register in Canada and he was again rejected in resounding terms. People there knew about this man. The Yorkshire regional health authority even provided him with a reference, saying that he was being promoted to chairman of the surgical division at Northallerton, but the Canadians turned him down. The discipline committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario issued a report in 1987 when he reapplied to the register in Canada, saying:
      "There was no evidence of a change in the pattern of his impaired judgement. The inability to make good clinical judgements is a condition difficult to rectify … Committee members were impressed that he had poor judgement as a young doctor and, in spite of additional training, continued to have poor judgement.
      524
      On the basis of deep-seated attitudinal and judgement problems, it was felt that Dr. Neale does not qualify for licence reinstatement."
      Even when Neale was refused his licence application, nothing was done in this country. It is unforgivable that a report detailing how he was incompetent, dishonest and lacking in judgment was not acted on. Despite sending a reference in support of his application for a Canadian licence, no one in Britain ever wondered about the outcome or ever found out that his application had been rejected. So he went on to cause great problems for many people. There is a long list of harrowing medical stories. I shall certainly not go through all of them, but I want to give the House a glimpse of what we are talking about.
      In 1977, Neale so badly botched bladder surgery at the Shaftsbury hospital in London, where he was before going to Canada, that his patient is still undergoing intensive treatment and reconstructive surgery 25 years later. Neale told her that he would operate after he got back from a lunchtime drinking spree to celebrate his successful job application in Canada. A senior consultant later told the patient that Neale had "just ripped through everything" and torn apart several internal organs.
      Neale discharged one patient from hospital prematurely in the face of strong protests from nursing staff. It transpired that the patient had a giant haematoma in her abdomen that caused her extreme pain such that she could not walk and had to crawl, even to the lavatory. Neale refused to re-admit her to hospital and insisted that she was "fine". The haematoma went untreated, became badly infected and ate into her bone, causing irreversible skeletal damage and permanent severe pain. She is now registered disabled. Another victim had the femoral nerve roots to her leg slashed as Neale performed a routine hysterectomy. She was left totally incontinent and unable to walk without the aid of two sticks.
      That is just a glimpse of the medical incompetence of the man. The abuse that he also dished out to patients is almost beyond belief. A Jehovah's Witness who could not receive blood was near death after an operation, but Neale declined to order any blood substitute after he had promised to do so. After her husband offered to pay for it, he screamed across the bed over the fully conscious patient, "Can't you see she's dying anyway? It's not worth bothering to order the blood substitute. Either she'll be dead or she won't by the time it gets here." Such, apparently, is the conduct of the man.
      Nurses have made statements saying that they knew how bad he was. One nurse of 27 years standing informed the action group for the medical victims that people were perfectly well aware of the clinical and surgical mayhem that he was causing at the Northallerton hospital, as well as being aware, from 1986, of his Canadian history. She said that the hospital insisted publicly that it knew of no clinical problems with Neale over the years, yet a gag order had been placed on all employees who were working with him—they were on pain of dismissal if they spoke openly about him.
      The same type of statement—again harrowing reading—has been made by another nurse who worked with him at a private hospital, confirming his refusal to adhere to even the most basic hygiene procedures, pre-operatively or during surgery. She said that he never bothered to "identify structures" but "simply slashed through everything", often including vital organs. That has become the familiar story.

      525
      It is not a trivial matter, or even just a case of a problem doctor; the issue is more serious than that. After years of clinical negligence and incompetence Neale was finally dismissed in Northallerton on non-clinical grounds. Not being available when on call, bad treatment of junior staff, misrepresenting his role, false travel claims and appropriating NHS supplies for private practice eventually brought about his dismissal by the Friarage hospital. He was also arrested in 1991 and given a police caution after an incident in a public lavatory, behaviour that does not sit easily with being a respected medical consultant. Given that the case against Neale, later proven at the General Medical Council, showed negligence and incompetence dating back to 1986, and given that some people knew about it, it is not clear why no public authority was aware of that incompetence. It is unacceptable that he was not sacked for his conduct, both clinical and non-clinical.
      Neale then received a pay-off and a reference from the Friarage hospital to shift the problem elsewhere, one of the most controversial aspects of the whole case. The former director of operations at the hospital told "Panorama":
      "Getting rid of a doctor is not easy and so Dr. Neale was paid £100,000 to leave and given a good reference. I think there was a grave risk we were sending him out to inflict him on others but we were prepared to take that risk because the risk to our own people and service … was not one we were prepared to take."
      The reference allowed him to carry on practising at Leicester royal infirmary, on the Isle of Wight, at London's Portland hospital and in Harley street. Leicester royal infirmary heard about the matter from the press and complained to the Yorkshire regional health authority that the reference was misleading. At the time, the infirmary's spokesman said that he felt "extreme dissatisfaction" with the reference— not a surprising reaction.
      Again, I must emphasise how serious this is. We have all heard of "kind" references about employees who are no longer wanted, but when it concerns a consultant gynaecologist with an appalling track record that many people knew about and who went on to practise on other patients, it is serious indeed. Neale went on to practise until a warning letter was sent out in June 1998 after publicity started to arise about the case.
      In January 1998, a BBC North East documentary programme, "Close Up North", carried a story about Richard Neale. At the beginning of February 1998, the director of operations at Northallerton wrote to Professor Liam Donaldson, then regional director of the NHS for the north and Yorkshire, about Richard Neale's record in Canada and his dishonesty in the United Kingdom. It was five months later, in June 1998, before a warning letter was finally sent out around hospital trusts and authorities in the UK warning them about Richard Neale and advising them to consult urgently if they were proposing to employ him.
      The story finally began to come out in public. In July 2000, the professional conduct committee of the GMC found Neale guilty of serious professional misconduct and directed his erasure from the register. They found him guilty of 34 out of 35 counts of serious professional misconduct. The president said that it was a shocking and disturbing case:
      "For far too long he caused unnecessary pain and suffering to many women and showed a determined and alarming lack of insight … The case, like others recently, raises a number of
      526
      important, wider issues for the whole system of medical regulation … his case highlights serious deficiencies in NHS procedures … It is difficult to understand why local action on his poor practice was not taken much earlier … The Neale case underlines, yet again, why there is such an urgent need to implement the systemic view of all doctors' practice".
      Neale was struck off by order of the GMC with immediate effect. There is a certain irony in that, after the 15-year history of the whole miserable business. The GMC concluded:
      "The Committee have directed the Registrar to erase your name from the Register. They have also concluded that, given the serious and persistent nature of the findings against you, it is necessary for the protection of the public that your registration be suspended with immediate effect."
      Thus, 15 years on, he was suspended with immediate effect, firmly locking the stable door after it had been open for so long.
      The case is tragic and extraordinary for hundreds of women and their families. It highlights many deficiencies in procedures and within the GMC. A doctor who should never have been allowed to practise in the UK was able to work unnoticed by the authorities for well over a decade, even though the truth about him was given to the authorities in various forms and at various stages while he was practising. I therefore believe that we need a more substantial, open and public inquiry than has been announced so far.
      It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That This House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
      Mr. Hague: I am grateful for the continued opportunity to speak a little longer, but I hope that the Minister will reply soon.
      I believe that there is a need for a public inquiry. We know—and no doubt the Minister will enlarge on this—something of the Department's approach and its reasoning for not allowing such an inquiry. An internal memo from Professor Donaldson, the chief medical officer, to Health Ministers, dated 30 July 2001, appeared in The Northern Echo. It referred to the carefully worked out terms of reference for the investigation. I have been a Minister, and I know what "carefully worked out terms of reference" means in a civil service memorandum: it means that the terms of reference have been drawn up to limit the scope of the investigation. That is the tone and the meaning of the memorandum, which states:
      "There is some pressure from the Cabinet Office not to challenge the Judicial Review"—
      that is, the attempt by the action group to open the matter up to a public inquiry by judicial means—
      "so that an adverse judgement on holding inquiries in private is not registered. This relates to another high profile matter where the intention is not to have a full-scale public inquiry."
      I am sorry that the Cabinet Office has tried to enmesh this business in its determination not to hold a public inquiry into the foot and mouth disaster, to which the memo was obviously referring.
      The memo continues
      "Capitulation"—
      to a public inquiry—
      "would be disastrous. Not only would we end up with three public inquiries"—

      527
      the memo refers to two parallel cases—
      "but all these are 'problem doctor' cases … There might be 50 such cases a year and we cannot be forced to accept such a precedent. The damage to the NHS of regular public inquiries would be immense."
      I put it to the Minister that if there are 50 cases of anything like this nature every year, we will need the inquiry to end all inquiries. We will need a huge public inquiry. Presumably what is meant is "50 cases in which doctors have done something wrong"; but as I hope I have demonstrated, this is not a case of the average doctor who has done something wrong so he needs a wrist-slapping. People may have died because of what he has done. That is clearly what is believed in Canada. This is a case of appalling incompetence, and appalling neglect of the need to protect the public.
      The memo says:
      "A further argument is that there is little further to be learned that has not been learned from other major inquiries into health service failures."
      Clearly there is a lot to be learned. Clearly much has gone wrong in the last 15 years. I know of no other inquiry that has covered all this ground and resolved all these issues. I therefore submit that a public inquiry is needed.
      In a response to e-mails to The Northern Echo, the Secretary of State himself said:
      "I am deeply concerned. When things goes wrong we need to learn the lessons. That is why openness is so important."
      Openness is very important in this case. I believe that we need an inquiry with an independent and impartial chairman, not from the Department of Health. I know that the Department has already suggested a concession in that regard, for which I am grateful. The inquiry should also be able to take evidence under oath, and have the power not only to subpoena witnesses but to examine the evidence of private patients. Private patients deserve some redress and some consideration from the Government and Parliament of the country.
      The inquiry should also have power to determine the role of the General Medical Council, and terms of reference enabling it to examine all the circumstances before and after the employment of Neale at the hospital, not just during his employment. I believe that the inquiry should be conducted in the presence of the press and the public.
      The investigation announced by the Department of Health does not meet those criteria. It is said that the victims can attend the inquiry, and can go out and tell the press what has been happening. Is that the form of openness that is now to be preferred in our society? Should not the press be free to report the proceedings, and report them straight? Must it rely on rumour and the passing on of news at second hand, when the matter involved concerns the public to such a huge extent?
      The terms of reference that the Department announced for the investigation are inadequate, as they extend only from 1985 to 1995, which is not sufficient to catalogue the inadequacy of the system since 1995 and prior to Neale's appointment in 1985. The investigation may well fail to cover the NHS pay-off and reference, and the GMC claims that it did not receive a complaint from NHS management until February 1998. All that is beyond the scope of the investigation that has been announced.
      The investigation will not be able to take evidence from private patients, even though they paid for treatment because of waiting lists or because Neale told them that
      528
      that was a better way to go. The inquiry's enhanced terms of reference look only at local NHS services, but the Neale case goes wider than Yorkshire, has implications for the NHS and GMC as a whole, and has highlighted serious deficiencies in health service procedures. We must ensure that all the lessons are learned.
      Everybody affected by Neale feels that there has already been too much foot dragging. Everything has been done a bit late, and we have had to campaign to get anything. To get an investigation, an action group had to he formed and lobbying had to take place. Throughout the history of this case, officialdom has dragged its feet; everything has been done behind time, when it was too late. It is not surprising that the people affected now want an inquiry out in the open. Ministers have nothing to fear from that. The case extends over a long time; no one is saying that today's Health Ministers bear responsibility for the origin of the problem. That is not their fault as Ministers, but it will be their fault if every lesson for the future is not learned in a fully open and transparent way, which is why we need a public inquiry into this appalling and disgraceful scandal.
      7.6 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on securing this debate and raising an issue that is important and serious both for those who came into contact with Mr. Neale, including the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, and for NHS patients generally.
      The right hon. Gentleman made a series of points which I shall try to address as best I can. The Government take these matters very seriously indeed and are determined to ensure that procedures are in place to minimise the risk to patients as far as possible. However, millions of patients have received the highest-quality care from the NHS; it is important that we do not lose sight of the excellent service provided by the vast majority of NHS staff, and I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks about the excellent service provided by the NHS in his constituency.
      There is universal agreement that patient safety must have priority. Any concerns about the conduct or competence of health professionals treating NHS patients must be properly investigated. Of course no system can be foolproof: when mistakes happen, a service is found wanting, or a professional is found to be incompetent, we must ensure that we learn the lessons necessary to avoid any future repetition to the extent that we are able to do so. That may involve local or national investigations, and of course there are differences of view about how best to approach these issues.
      In the case of Mr. Neale, there were clearly great failures in the system. I agree that the case is serious and involves all kinds of unacceptable failings in the system in the mid 1980s through to the mid 1990s. From what we now know, there appears to have been a series of mistakes that badly let down those patients who went to Mr. Neale expecting at the very least a reasonable standard of treatment. Mr. Neale let them down in the way in which he treated them, and the NHS let them down by failing comprehensively to protect them.
      The right hon. Gentleman set out a chronology of events and problems at different stages in the employment of Mr. Neale. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will

      529
      forgive me for not wanting to pre-empt the results of the inquiry that we have launched to ensure a thorough investigation of what went wrong with the NHS systems that were then in place to protect patients. We are determined to learn the lessons of what went wrong in this case, as well as those of other incidents, in order to improve substantially the quality of care for NHS patients and give them the confidence that the right systems are in place to afford them the protection that they need. At this stage, it is important that Ministers do not pre-empt the diagnosis of the problem or the suggestions that result from the inquiry. However, I should like to respond as far as I can to the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised in terms not only of the inquiry itself but of the broader themes that are raised by the events that took place in relation to Mr. Neale.
      As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Secretary of State for Health announced on 13 July last year a full independent investigation into the way in which the NHS had handled complaints about Mr. Neale's activities in the 1980s and 1990s. Of course, the NHS has moved on considerably since 1997 and the proposed inquiry was intended to look not only at the systems that were in place at the time but at the extent to which improved systems could deal with the deficiencies exposed by the case. The right hon. Gentleman raised issues about whether the inquiry should be public. As he mentioned, those issues are to be the subject of a judicial review that is due to start on Tuesday 5 February, so there will shortly be full scrutiny of the Secretary of State's decision to hold an investigation into this case other than by way of a public inquiry. As is so often the case in such circumstances, a view must be taken about the right approach for achieving the best outcome. That may involve, as it has in this case, a decision about the relative merits of a public inquiry, as opposed to a private one. Both attract arguments for and against, but in the end, it is a matter of judgment in each case on the basis of the particular circumstances that it involves. It is almost inevitable that the final decision will not satisfy everyone.
      In general terms, the decision to hold an inquiry in private was based on the Secretary of State's concern that the systems that were then in place in the NHS for handling complaints should be thoroughly investigated, that the inquiry should be scrupulously fair and that the outcome should restore public confidence in the complaints system as quickly as possible. It was my right hon. Friend's view that those aims would be achieved most effectively by an independent inquiry that took evidence in private and published a report of its findings and recommendations. Following representations, he agreed that the inquiry proceedings could be attended throughout by all the witnesses, affording them the opportunity to hear what was said not only by their legal advisers but by other people.
      In making his decision, the Secretary of State has taken account of the many relevant factors and weighed carefully the arguments on each side. He has given special consideration to the views of the group supporting the victims by agreeing to significant modifications to the form that the investigation should take. All the information has been comprehensively stated in the evidence provided for the judicial review by the chief medical officer. It is obviously difficult to attempt to
      530
      paraphrase or reproduce that careful analysis, which is extensive, but I can say that it covers the benefits of quicker resolution and of being better able to get to the truth if more people are comfortable giving evidence in private because there are sensitive areas of care. Clearly, the matter will be considered by the judicial review and it would be unwise for me to attempt to anticipate or pre-empt the task that will shortly be before the courts.
      The right hon. Gentleman expressed concerns about the inquiry's terms of reference. In particular, he mentioned the ability to subpoena witnesses. The Secretary of State has considered the matter and we are not aware of evidence of problems with getting witnesses to testify in similar cases, but my right hon. Friend has said that, if there is evidence that that proves a problem in this case, he is willing to reconsider whether additional powers need to be given.
      The right hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the inquiry's terms of reference and scope. Ultimately, its scope will be a matter for the inquiry itself to determine. The terms of reference give the members of the inquiry quite wide scope in deciding the most important issues that need to be investigated. They state that the inquiry will need to investigate
      "the concerns or complaints raised concerning the appointment, practice and conduct of Richard Neale in respect of his employment as a consultant in the NHS.
      To investigate the actions which were taken for the purpose of (a) considering the concerns and complaints which were raised; (b) providing remedial action in relation to them; and (c) ensuring that the opportunities for any similar future misconduct were removed.
      To assess and draw conclusions as to the effectiveness of the policies and procedures in place.
      To make recommendations informed by this case as to improvements which should be made to policies and procedures which are now in place within the health service, (taking into account the changes in procedures since the events in question)."
      It is not for me to determine exactly what the inquiry will choose to examine, but the terms of reference give it scope to concentrate on the issues that it feels are most important when looking at the evidence and listening to the testimony that those who have suffered at the hands of Mr. Neale will give.
      It is important that we do not think that we need to wait until the inquiry ends before making improvements to the NHS. Many improvements have already taken place but it is critical that we establish a learning culture in the NHS. It must be able to learn from problems, difficulties and failings continuously, not simply when high-profile problems are covered in the national media.
      Time after time, the blame culture has led to failures in the NHS, as the Bristol inquiry has recently shown. We have set out to change that culture to one of trust, where there is greater openness and partnership between patients and professionals and where lessons may be learned when things go wrong.
      I want to respond to some of the broad themes that arise from the right hon. Gentleman's chronology of the events surrounding Mr. Neale's case. From the evidence we have seen, it is clear that one of the major concerns raised by Mr. Neale's case is the failure to pick up on the clinical problems with his practice, which subsequently formed the basis of complaints to the General Medical Council. Those were simply not picked up early enough. Nor was the extent of the problem recognised despite a series of

      531
      investigations. It is clear that we need to ensure not only that systems are in place to identify clinical problems early but that they are responded to properly, openly and effectively.
      The changes over the past five years or so are aimed at creating a culture change. They focus on improvements in quality and patient safety, reform of professional self-regulation and guidance for professionals. They are aimed at preventing to the extent possible those failures that have led to cases such as that of Mr. Neale.
      The introduction of systems of clinical governance places a clear responsibility on the organisation to deliver and continuously improve patient care—it is the mechanism for ensuring, among other things, that NHS organisations can demonstrate that they are meeting the statutory duty of quality set out in the Health Act 1999. We need to have systems in place for local reporting and picking up adverse events, providing the mechanism for identifying and responding to cases of persistent poor practice by individual health professionals.
      Improvements include the establishment of the Commission for Health Improvement to review and report on quality improvement in health care organisations. Its principal role is to improve the quality of patient care in the NHS across England and Wales. CHI undertakes clinical governance reviews as well as investigating serious service failures in the NHS when requested to do so.
      An office for information on health care performance will be established within CHI with responsibility for publishing relevant information for patients. We are taking steps to publish information about the "success rates" of individual consultants—a move that might have brought some of Mr. Neale's practices to light earlier—building on national audit work already in train. Information about cardiac surgery will become available in 2004, with other specialties following.
      In line with the findings of "An Organisation with a Memory" we have established the National Patients Safety Agency to provide a single national system of reporting and analysis of adverse events and near misses that occur within the NHS, and to ensure that effective learning takes place to make the NHS a safer place for patients. We will be taking further steps to rationalise the number of bodies inspecting and regulating health and social care.
      We also need to reform the NHS complaints procedure to ensure that there is a procedure in place that can flag up patient complaints, particularly when there are persistent complaints around the same health professional, as was the case with Mr. Neale. The purpose of the reforms in which the Government are already involved is to ensure that the procedure is more independent and responsive to the needs of patients while maintaining the confidence and support of NHS staff. We are aiming to send out guidance to the NHS and commence training in early summer with a view to the reformed procedure being implemented later this year.
      We have also established the National Clinical Assessment Authority to help NHS employers assess the small minority of "poorly performing doctors" and make recommendations about whether and under what circumstances they will continue to practise in the NHS. It is important that we do not simply identify the problems, but have proper systems in place to assess those
      532
      problems effectively and accurately and respond to them, as well as giving NHS employers guidance in being able to respond at local level.
      Another major concern in the case of Mr. Neale is the failure of the regulatory system to respond effectively and appropriately when it was found that he had effectively been struck off the medical register in Canada. The right hon. Gentleman made important points about that. If patients are to be protected, we must ensure that professionals are not simply able to move around to escape proper scrutiny or effective regulation. That was a matter of serious concern for the Government in the light of the Neale case.
      We have already acted quickly to free up the General Medical Council procedures. In August 2000, we introduced some interim reform measures that significantly improved the GMC's ability to act quickly to protect the public and to make sure that NHS employers know when the GMC is considering a case. New procedures enable the GMC to take into account certain criminal convictions of a doctor when abroad. In the spring, we will extend the GMC's powers to enable it to take into account disqualifying decisions taken by authorities outside Europe, as was the case with Mr. Neale. The GMC will not have to re-prove the case against a doctor, which has been the problem in the past in handling cases such as that of Mr. Neale.
      In the spring, we will also announce our proposals for the radical overhaul of all the GMC's fitness-to-practise procedures. That will improve the independence of the hearings in relation to GMC members, who in future will be responsible for the investigation and prosecution of cases but not the hearing of the case. We expect that the new arrangements will speed up the disciplinary processes, which have been subject to frustrating delays in the past, and make the processes and outcomes more understandable to the public.
      The establishment of a new council for the regulation of health care professionals, as proposed in the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, will also help to strengthen and co-ordinate the system of professional self-regulation. I believe that it is essential that professional self-regulation commands public and patient confidence. The new council will work with the regulatory bodies to build and manage a strong system of self-regulation that is open and transparent; that responds; that allows robust public scrutiny; and that explicitly puts patients first. The council should provide for greater integration and co-ordination between the regulatory bodies and the sharing of good practice and information.
      The right hon. Gentleman also referred to concerns about Mr. Neale's practice in the private sector. He may be aware that, under the Health Act 1999, the Secretary of State does not have the power to set up an inquiry that would cover that. He is also right that we need better regulation of the private sector. That is why it is right that we will introduce in April regulation of independent health care through the National Care Standards Commission, which will set national minimum standards for the private sector. All providers will be required to meet core standards, and standards specific to the particular services that they provide, which will be patient centred and will specifically address clinical treatment.

      533
      In drafting those regulations, patient safety was the foremost consideration. Currently, when health authorities register and inspect premises, they take no account of the quality of services provided, and those who own or manage hospitals accept no responsibility for the treatment either. The patient enters into a contract with the doctor, not the hospital.
      After 1 April, those who run the establishment will be held responsible for the quality of the services provided. They will be required to have in place policies and procedures for clinical governance, and to have a formal complaints system. If patients are dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaints procedure, they may approach the National Care Standards Commission direct.
      The right hon. Gentleman discussed in detail some of the harrowing cases that came to light as a result of the events surrounding Mr. Neale, which have certainly proved distressing. That is why it was also felt important to offer additional treatment and support to those former patients of Mr. Neale. The care programme for members of the support group for ex-patients of Richard Neale started at the end of April last year. The initial clinical assessment phase has involved in-depth consultations with more than 100 of the women concerned.
      The process is ongoing, and I understand that more than 70 referrals have been made for further expert assessment and investigation, and, if appropriate, treatment. The majority of referrals have now been seen by Mr. Paul Hilton, urogynaecologist and clinical director for
      534
      women's services at the Royal Victoria infirmary, Newcastle. The few remaining will be seen in the coming weeks.
      I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern that the safety of patients in the NHS should be paramount. As I have said, we have already introduced since 1997 a series of practical and effective measures to try to improve the clinical governance system and the way in which the NHS responds to mistakes and problems, enabling it better to identify problems at an early stage, and in particular to learn lessons from them. We must recognise that sometimes, things will go wrong, but we must also ensure that lessons are learned at an early stage, rather than many years later, after too much further damage has been done.
      It is important that the inquiry fully investigates the problems relating to Mr. Neale's treatment of patients, his employment in the NHS and the systems then in place. It must make recommendations about problems in the systems at that time, so that we can better improve existing systems.
      The inquiry was set up after great consideration, with terms of reference and conditions that the Secretary of State believes will best provide us with a thorough investigation and speedy answers. They will enable the NHS to learn effectively from the tragic events, and I hope that we can ensure that the events and actions surrounding Mr. Neale do not happen again.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Gibraltar
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin.]
2.30 pm
The Minister for Europe: The Government have called this debate because we want to report to the House on the negotiations on Gibraltar. I understand the suspicion and fear on the Rock about the Government's motives. So I want to explain our policy, and to nail the many myths about it. Our aim is to safeguard Gibraltar's way of life, to secure a better future and to end our dispute with Spain. That is not because we want to appease Spain or to rid ourselves of Gibraltar—quite the reverse.
Why have the Foreign Secretary and I devoted such time and energy to Gibraltar these past six months when we have also had to deal with international crises from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe and vital issues elsewhere in Europe? We did so because we feel it is our duty. We did so because the current situation is damaging Gibraltar, constraining our relationship with Spain, blocking British objectives in the European Union and undermining Britain's wider interests. We did so because there is a moment in history either to seize or to lose, perhaps for a very long time.
Gibraltarians have had to live under the shadow of Spanish antagonism for far too long. They have endured disruption to their everyday lives that no one should have to put up with in modern Europe—lengthy border queues and delays, telephone problems such as insufficient landlines and inoperative mobiles, restrictions on proper air services, and continual frustration.
It is not just Gibraltar's present that is difficult. Gibraltar cannot stand still in a globalised world. Its economy will not thrive in the new global marketplace unless it can modernise. It will not thrive unless it can attract new investment. It will not thrive unless it opts for full and unfettered access to the EU's single market. It will not thrive until the barriers that separate it from the wider region come down. Those things will be harder or impossible to achieve while the current dispute festers.
Already Gibraltar's special tax breaks will have to change as a result of modernising initiatives from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the European Union. That will happen whether or not any agreement that we reach is supported by the people of Gibraltar, but if we reach an agreement that is acceptable to Gibraltar we will receive the support of the European Union and the Government of Spain in upholding Gibraltar's interests and ensuring that changes are implemented in a way that protects the Rock's prosperity. If we do not reach an agreement, it will be much harder to secure the necessary transitional arrangements to provide the protection that Gibraltar wants.
136WH
Be clear that change is coming anyway, as the Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, has recognised. Moreover, the strong relationship that Britain now enjoys with Spain cannot reach its full potential until we resolve the Gibraltar issue. Gibraltar matters to us. It has mattered for many hundreds of years. It will continue to matter to us, but so does our relationship with Spain. Spain is a big country. It is increasingly prosperous; soon it will be a net contributor to the EU. It is increasingly powerful inside and beyond Europe.
We already have a strong alliance with Spain on a range of key issues, including reform of the European economy to deliver greater prosperity and more jobs in all our constituencies, which we will take further forward at the Barcelona European Council in March; creating an EU that is more effective and accountable and in which the key decisions remain with the nation states; and fighting the domestic and international terrorism that has afflicted both our countries more than many others in the EU. Our two Governments co-operate closely at all levels.
The relationship matters to real people too. Some 500,000 British citizens live in Spain. Our exports to Spain are worth more than £8 billion per year and support thousands of British jobs. But this relationship, good though it is, remains constrained by the Gibraltar issue. We will not realise its full potential and the benefits for Britain that will flow from it unless and until we resolve that issue. The Spanish Government feel exactly the same way.
Nor will we secure from the European Union all the benefits that we want for the British people until the issue is resolved. In the EU, the dispute damages our interests. It has complicated and delayed for years the opening up of a European single sky and measures to make air travel safer, flights cheaper and delays shorter.
So this is not an abstract diplomatic dispute. It has real effects on the lives of 30,000 Gibraltarians and of 59 million Britons, who are unable to enjoy all the potential benefits of our relationship with Spain and the European Union because of it. It needs solving, but not at the expense of Gibraltar. Any solution must be in the interests of Gibraltar. That is our objective and our pledge. We will not solve the problem by posturing or shouting or carrying on, as successive British, Spanish and Gibraltarian Governments have done for decades. Where has all that got us? The old ways have been abject failures.
When the British Governments of John Major and of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister started out on the road that brought a new settlement to Northern Ireland, no one thought that they could succeed. But my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has succeeded. He has done so only by breaking with the failed approaches of the past. Britain, Spain and Gibraltar must have the vision and self-confidence to negotiate a new deal for a new century. We must also have the political courage. Leadership is not about telling people what they want to hear, or hiding behind failed old shibboleths. That demonstrates not courage but weakness.
Why should anyone be afraid of negotiation? It is the right way to advance Britain's and Gibraltar's interests. Negotiation is not selling out. The only sell-out is by those who try to fool the public that there are serious alternatives to talking—there are not. The

137WH
Government's first aim is to preserve Gibraltar's way of life, its culture and its proud British traditions. Our second aim is to establish greater self-government in Gibraltar so that its people can have what they want—more power over their own lives. Our third aim is to deliver real and lasting practical benefits to Gibraltar—a stronger economy, more and better jobs, and an end to border delays, problems with telephones and restrictions on air services, through a new relationship with the region and with the European Union. Our fourth aim is a lasting agreement on sovereignty, so that the 300-year-old dispute and all its damaging effects are finally put behind us, enabling Gibraltarians to enjoy security for their way of life and an end to feuding with Spain.
That is why we and Spain relaunched the Brussels process last year. We are making good progress, with a view to agreeing proposals to be put to the people of Gibraltar. However, it will be tough going. The negotiations are difficult. The positions are entrenched and have been for centuries. We continue to hope that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar will join us in those talks to represent at first hand the interests of the people of Gibraltar. Our offer to him to participate remains on the table. Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I had long, friendly and constructive discussions with him last Friday.
I have since written to Mr. Caruana to reaffirm our offer to him to participate in the talks and to reassure him about our aims. Our aims remain to agree proposals covering all outstanding issues, including those of co-operation and sovereignty. The guiding principle of those proposals is to build a secure, stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar and a modern sustainable status consistent with British and Spanish membership of the European Union and NATO. The proposals will rest on four important pillars: safeguarding Gibraltar's way of life; measures of practical co-operation underpinned by economic assistance to secure normalisation of relations with Spain and the EU; extended self-government; and sovereignty.
Mr. Mark Francois: The Minister has referred several times to the European Union and the relationship with it. Will he confirm that changes to the status of Gibraltar may require subsequent change to European Union treaties, to which we are party?
Peter Hain: Any changes of that magnitude would have to be endorsed in a referendum by the people of Gibraltar. However, there could be changes to the treaties required, which would require the approval of the European Council at the intergovernmental conference in 2004.
If and when we have agreed proposals, which will not be easy given the difficulty of the issues involved, we intend to report them fully to Parliament. We hope that the Government and people of Gibraltar will study the proposals carefully. If they wish, they will have the opportunity to negotiate a final agreement before putting it to a referendum.
I want to make two things crystal clear in case they were not clear before. In the absence of the Chief Minister, the proposals will be in the form of a joint
138WH
declaration from Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Spain. As such, they will be historic. Crucially, however, they will not be a fait accompli. Neither Government will say to the people of Gibraltar, "Take it or leave it." Instead, there will be proposals for consultation with the people of Gibraltar and negotiation with their Government. Once the Brussels process meetings have concluded, both Governments will be ready to invite the Chief Minister to fresh negotiations, especially on those matters of detail and substance without which any new settlement could not be satisfactorily implemented to the benefit of all concerned, especially Gibraltar. If at the end of that process we have a viable agreement, we plan to put the whole package to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum and let them decide. If they say yes to the package, we will implement it. If they say no, we will not.
Andrew Mackinlay: The Minister has said that if we have a viable agreement, we will put it to the people of Gibraltar. I refer him to the evidence that he gave to the Foreign Affairs Committee recently, when I probed him about this point, as I do not want there to be any misunderstanding or ambiguity. If no agreement is reached with Spain, or if an agreement is reached with Spain that falls short of transference or shared sovereignty, what is agreed will nevertheless be put to the people of Gibraltar. I understand that a memorandum of understanding is likely to emerge. Will the Minister clarify whether its contents will be put to the people of Gibraltar?
Peter Hain: My hon. Friend—he is a good friend—may not have been listening to what I have been saying. I will continue with my remarks, and allow him to intervene if he is not satisfied.
If the people of Gibraltar say yes to an agreement negotiated after the Brussels process meetings with the Government of Gibraltar have finished, the final word will lie with this House. Any changes to sovereignty would require primary legislation. We said at the start what we were going to do, and we are doing it. At each stage, we have reported to Parliament and will continue to do so. If and when the process reaches a conclusion, we will come back to Parliament. I continue this rich tradition of transparency today by announcing that the next in the series of ministerial meetings in the Brussels process will be held in London on 4 February.
At every stage, we have worked hard to bring the Chief Minister into the talks and meanwhile we have maintained close contact with him. I also offered to brief the Opposition on the usual terms where matters of state, not party, are at stake. They declined, despite the fact that in opposition Labour accepted precisely the same offer from the Conservative Government when they were involved in the same process to support a bipartisan process. We could not have been more transparent and accountable to the House short of inviting television cameras into the negotiations, and anyone who knows anything about diplomacy realises that that would have been ridiculous.
Geraldine Smith: Is my right hon. Friend saying that this House could decide to give joint sovereignty over Gibraltar between Britain and Spain, even though it is not what the people of

139WH
Gibraltar want and they voted against it in a referendum? That would be wrong. We should take the views of the people of Gibraltar into account, and the overwhelming majority want to stay British.
Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is another good friend, but I invite her to consider what I said rather than what she thought I was going to say. I said that the issue would arise and primary legislation would follow only if the people of Gibraltar had accepted an agreement in a referendum. If the people of Gibraltar endorsed an agreement, it would be for the House to implement their wishes. I hope that that provides a categorical reassurance on that point.
Mr. Bob Laxton: Despite all the discussion, openness and transparency, and the fact that many Gibraltarians would welcome an easing of the relationship with Spain, are we not facing the danger that the result of a referendum might be no? That would render the whole process described by the Minister abortive.
2.46 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.1 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Laxton: I am sure that Gibraltarians will welcome much of what the Minister said about the possibility of improving the relationship with Spain. However, despite the transparency of the negotiations, does the Minister agree that it is possible that the process may be abortive if the Gibraltarians vote in large numbers against any change in the relationship? Would it not have been better to place some pressure on the Spanish to go through a perhaps lengthy process of easing restrictions and adjusting their demeanour in relation to Gibraltar in a way that would have found more favour with Gibraltarians and encouraged greater affirmative response in any referendum?
Peter Hain: I thank my hon. Friend and agree with him. If we or our Conservative predecessors had managed to persuade Spain to treat Gibraltarians as they have a right to be treated, we would not have had to embark on this course. We have not managed that, like all previous Governments, which is why we have chosen a fresh approach. I am confident that it can produce an outcome for which the people of Gibraltar will feel able to vote in a referendum and one that will guarantee them a stable and secure future. That is our objective. If the people of Gibraltar say no at the end of the process, that is their democratic right, but at least we will have tried as hard as we can.
I will clarify something for my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who asked about a referendum. I have tried to explain something this afternoon that is perhaps new. Given that we have been unable so far to attract the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to the Brussels process meetings, we have secured Spanish agreement to putting proposals to the people and Government of Gibraltar, which they could then use to engage in fresh negotiations outside the
140WH
Brussels process that may be easier for them to take part in. There is fresh thinking in Madrid and London and there should be fresh thinking everywhere to resolve this impasse.
Andrew Mackinlay: I am genuinely bewildered. I understood the Minister to say that he hoped that heads of agreement—or words to that effect—would emerge from the process, which would be put to the people of Gibraltar and, if they were accepted, that there would be subsequent negotiations. Will there be a second referendum? Is that what the Minister is saying?
Peter Hain: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has sought clarification, as it enables me to clarify the matter in triplicate, so to speak. If, between us, we are successful in achieving a way forward with the Spanish Government—I do not know whether we will be, as difficult issues are involved—there will be a joint declaration of proposals, not a final agreement. There is no fait accompli or take-it-or-leave-it decision. We do not envisage a referendum on the proposals; we envisage the proposals being put to the people of Gibraltar to study, think about, consult on and form their own views about. We can then invite the Chief Minister in the Government of Gibraltar to negotiate with us jointly—Spain and Britain—bilaterally with Spain an1d bilaterally with Britain, as is appropriate, to form a final agreement which will then go to a referendum.
At this moment I do not envisage one referendum after the other. I do not know; we would have to see what the Government of Gibraltar felt, but if there were no subsequent agreement following the conclusion of the Brussels process with the Government of Gibraltar, I am not sure that there would be any point in calling a referendum. However, that is a matter for the Government of Gibraltar, who may want to call a referendum, in which case we would happily discuss with them how to proceed in order to achieve a definitive conclusion to the process. That is something for the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock shows a genuine and principled interest in the matter and I ask him to think of a fresh way through, because that is what we are trying to find.
Mr. Bill Tynan: If there is a joint declaration between the United Kingdom and Spain, and if proposals are made, how will the people of Gibraltar express their position on them? If there is no opportunity to reject those proposals how can the Minister take the process forward?
Peter Hain: As I have explained, if the Government of Gibraltar feel that it is in their interests to do so, they may want to go straight to a referendum on the proposals without negotiation. Hon. Members should bear it in mind that without Gibraltar's presence in the Brussels process negotiation it is not possible, let alone desirable, to reach anything like a final agreement, because that would have to include matters of detail and substance that are properly the preserve of the Government of Gibraltar.
Let us suppose that the final declaration to emerge from this round of the Brussels process meeting included something on the airport, in principle—for example,

141WH
removal of the restrictions on flights that exist at present due to the ban by Spain. It would not be possible to take that forward and implement it in a practical way unless the Government of Gibraltar agreed the modus operandi and all the detail, because they not only have a stake in it but have powers over the matter.
Sir Teddy Taylor: If there were a substantial no vote by the people of Gibraltar—we appreciate that that is one possibility—would the joint declaration then be dead so that we would start again, or would the joint declaration between Britain and Spain have a continuing status? That is something that mystifies many of us, even though we have different views. Can it be clarified?
Mr. Mark Hendrick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate for hon. Members who want to speak in the debate to say whether they have made any visit to Gibraltar that was funded by the Gibraltar Government?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely for hon. Members to decide whether they wish to declare an interest.
Peter Hain: I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman in some detail, as this is an important point. I refer him to the background. The European Council asked us to take forward the Brussels process discussions in the interests of all concerned. The Government of Gibraltar left Britain and Spain with no alternative but to see whether we could agree proposals, as we were the only parties that could do so when the Chief Minister left an empty chair. Now that the Government of Gibraltar realise that their attempted veto has failed and that the talks must proceed because the European Council requested us to reach a conclusion if possible, people seem to be saying that we should create a second veto instead of filling that empty chair.
As I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), any proposal that emerged from the Brussels process is supposed to vanish as if it had never appeared, in the way that communist governments air-brushed events from their history books. Any proposals that emerge will be just that—proposals. If they are put to a referendum and rejected, no one can air-brush them away, but they cannot be implemented. I remind the Committee that in 1994, under a similar line of attack, the Conservative Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was asked about the status of the Downing Street declaration that was agreed between the Governments of Britain and Ireland. He told the House that
"The declaration remains, and will remain, a free-standing declaration of principles."—[Official Report, 28 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 375.]
That was greeted with outrage from some quarters, but led eventually to the Good Friday agreement of 1998, which has brought peace and stability to Northern Ireland when none looked possible. The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that one cannot air-
142WH
brush the joint declaration away, but it cannot be implemented without the people of Gibraltar voting yes in a referendum.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: In response to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), I have never visited Gibraltar as a guest of the Government of Gibraltar.
I want to take the Minister back to his remarks about the airport. Does that mean that there would be a vote under duress? In other words, would the legitimate rights of the people of Gibraltar over their airport be met only if they voted the right way in a referendum? If so, that would confirm all our fears.
Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I told the Deputy Speaker who preceded you in the Chair that if I was called, I would refer to a visit that I made to Gibraltar, which I do not have to do, as declarations are time-limited. I also said that I would give notice that there is a material point about access to a place where we have responsibilities, but where, as Members of Parliament, we cannot go.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It may be an observation of indeterminate pertinence. If hon. Members have visited Gibraltar at the expense of the Government of Gibraltar, they are advised to declare the interest.
Peter Hain: I will respond to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). It is a problem in this debate that there is always an interruption, whether it is a vote or some other thing, before I can answer the question.
My remarks about the airport do not mean what the right hon. Member for Bracknell says that they mean. They mean what I said. I offered as an example the airport, or any other matter that is currently under the jurisdiction of the Government of Gibraltar in which they have a direct, practical interest and for which they have a legal responsibility. We could not simply proceed to implement something without agreement or negotiated participation. That would be impossible. That is why the policy of the empty chair pressed on the Chief Minister by many on the Rock is mistaken. If he is unable to participate in the Brussels process negotiations for understandable reasons, given the history of the past few months, the Chief Minister and the Government can negotiate a phase II, after we have agreed a joint declaration of proposals, if we are able to do so. That will still be subject to a referendum.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?
Peter Hain: I will, but I should make progress in the interests of everyone.
Rev. Martin Smyth: For the avoidance of any doubt, I should say that a long time ago I went to Gibraltar as a guest. Since then I have been there at my own expense with my wife. My last visit there was with the British islands and Mediterranean region conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

143WH
The Minister referred to the Downing Street declaration. He will be aware that there are those of us who accepted the principle of consent. This is what concerns the people of Gibraltar; that consent is taken for granted and people move forward because joint sovereignty has been given away and the people of Gibraltar, like the people of Northern Ireland, are not keen on joint sovereignty.
Peter Hain: I do not want to enter into the history of Northern Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "You raised it."] I raised the declaration and I was pleased to do so. There was a declaration of principles, which many criticised, but for all its imperfections, it has led to more peace, stability and security than Northern Ireland had enjoyed for generation upon generation. We should not approach the issue with closed minds, but, as has been the case in Northern Ireland—if one wants to extend the comparison—so it will be in Gibraltar. Irrespective of whether any proposals lead to a final agreement with the Government of Gibraltar, which would be ideal, in the end the people of Gibraltar will have their say in a referendum. That is our pledge.
Mr. Greg Pope: With a name like mine, I am not going to raise Northern Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister assure us that, if the Government of Gibraltar continue to boycott talks, not only in the Brussels process but after its conclusion, that will not prevent the people of Gibraltar from having a say in their future and they will not be able to veto a referendum?
Peter Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's point. From the moment we began the latest phase of the Brussels process negotiations, the introduction of vetoes has been a negative aspect of the discussions. It would have been far better if the Chief Minister had joined us, as he could have done, and as he still can with his conditions of safety and dignity satisfied. Even if he is unable to do so until after the joint declaration is published—if we reach that stage with the Government of Spain; there are still major issues to be resolved—I hope that there will not be a second veto.
I hope that the Government of Gibraltar will say, "We may not like all of this, but we may like some of it. Let's negotiate over it and see if we can reach a better deal. Let's see if we can represent our interests on behalf of the people of Gibraltar. If we can't, and the negotiations don't succeed, we will ask people to vote no in a referendum or we won't consider it worth putting to a referendum". That will be a matter for us to discuss with the Government of Gibraltar. I would not want to go to a referendum against the wishes of the Government of Gibraltar. That would not be sensible, regardless of what we felt, Gibraltarians felt, or indeed the Chief Minister felt about the contents of any proposals.
Let me again set out our pledges. Our opponents clearly do not read Hansard, so instead I invite them to read my lips. First, the British and Spanish Governments want the Government of Gibraltar to be represented in negotiations. The door remains open for Mr. Caruana. Secondly, we will not impose any deal on the people of Gibraltar. They will have the final say in a referendum. Whatever the Conservatives may say, the
144WH
Chief Minister of Gibraltar acknowledges that. In his new year message to the people of Gibraltar, Mr. Caruana said:
"Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have recently made clear in parliamentary statements that there would be no change in the sovereignty of Gibraltar against our wishes. I believe that this assurance is totally reliable…There is no harm in proposals being put to Gibraltar to accept or reject, provided this is a genuinely democratic exercise".
That is exactly the process in which we are engaged. As we made clear, we hope that the Government and people of Gibraltar will help to shape the proposals that we and Spain are working out before any vote in a referendum.
Our position is clear. The real problem is not the Government's approach but the Opposition's approach. How many Opposition Members here today agree with the following statement:
"the present position is doing harm to every party concerned. It is doing harm to Spain itself. It has a historic grievance, and one can understand that. For Spain to have a small corner of territory outside its own country but very close as an area of persistent economic, social and political concern must in itself be undesirable.
Gibraltar has a similar set of problems to confront…There is a limit to its prospect of political progress; there are recurrent economic and social shocks; the frontier closes and opens; and there is no present arrangement for its representation in the European Union.
Far and away the greatest British interest in the situation is in a resolution of this dispute on terms acceptable to the other parties"?
It is striking that so few Opposition Members are prepared to endorse the common-sense views of their former Foreign Secretary. Perhaps we should not be surprised. As Lord Howe also reminded us in that speech:
"Some people question the legitimacy of even seeking a solution to this issue. Some people write and speak as though the search for improvement in this position is in some way…disloyal".— [Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2001; Vol. 629, c. 1392.]
Many of those people are sitting here today. Like Lord Howe, this Government reject that view absolutely. The Opposition seem keen to forget the views of their former Foreign Secretary. They are keen to forget other things too. The people who launched the Brussels process that they now deride were members not of this Government but of the Conservative Government in 1984. The person who first agreed to discuss Gibraltar's sovereignty with Spain was not our Prime Minister but Margaret Thatcher.
I will accept responsibility on behalf of Labour in two matters connected with Gibraltar. First, the Government who gave the pledge that I have reaffirmed again today—no change in sovereignty without the consent of the people of Gibraltar—was a Labour Government: Harold Wilson's in 1969. I am glad that the Tories are rallying to this. Secondly, although the Tories started this process, the people who aim to finish it—we are determined to finish it successfully—are this Labour Government.
So why have the Tories lurched from supporting a process that Margaret Thatcher launched in the 1980s to condemning it as virtually treasonable in 2002?
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the Minister give way?
Peter Hain: No.

145WH
The answer is simple. The Tory party has changed. Today's Tory party does not believe in negotiation. Today's Tory party does not believe in Europe. Today's Tory party has made sovereignty a virility symbol—even when pooling it in the EU actually benefits the people of Britain. Today's Tory party prefers to posture from the Back Benches rather than face reality; to make trouble in opposition rather than make a difference in government. That is of course the luxury of opposition. As long as Conservatives stick to their current polices they will enjoy that luxury for a very long time to come.
This Government are serious about delivering. We live in the real world. We are serious about safeguarding Gibraltar's way of life, about securing a better future for Gibraltar and about advancing our interests in Europe for the benefit of the people of Britain. That is why we are in this process. That is why we will continue to take it forward with clarity and commitment. And that is why I hope that this House, and all who want a better future for Gibraltar, will support us.
3.23 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: Many hon. Members are concerned about recent reports about developments in the latest round of the Brussels process. I am grateful to the Minister of State for initiating the debate this afternoon so that those matters can be aired. He is absolutely right. This is about real people and real problems. We are all interested in resolving this matter.
There have been widespread concerns that Gibraltar is being pushed into a done deal whereby sovereignty will be shared with Spain. The Government have done precious little to allay those fears. The Government must understand their responsibility for the mess and heightened passions that they have created. The Minister should just look around him. All parties in the House of Commons share a concern about the future of Gibraltar. To suggest that this is a partisan issue is unworthy of the Minister.
We must have calm negotiations, which would allow for resolution of the difficulties in the relationship. Surely the Minister agrees that a reassuring approach is the only way to resolve the difficulties satisfactorily, particularly for the people in Gibraltar who are affected by them. The Minister made several important points this afternoon, but they beg many questions.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman endorse the Chief Minister's refusal to take part in the talks unless he is given an absolute veto on their outcome? Can the hon. Gentleman cite any precedent for that approach, apart from that of the Democratic Unionist party?
Mr. Spring: I am disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because that is a parody of the Chief Minister's position, which I shall discuss in detail later.
Ministers have done nothing to reassure the people of Gibraltar. Of course, the Government are involved in the Brussels process, which the Conservative party began. I accept that, from the beginning, "the issues of sovereignty" were to be discussed. However, when the
146WH
Spanish put forward proposals on changing Gibraltar's sovereignty, the Conservative Government always rejected them. By contrast, by allowing the Matutes proposals to lie on the table unanswered, this Government have helped to create the atmosphere of uncertainty in which the Government of Gibraltar refuse to participate in the talks. I shall elaborate on that later.
The words of the Government and the Minister have not helped. The Minister will no doubt remember his insensitive observation on 7 November:
"Our European partners do not understand why a dispute between two member states over a territory with a population one fifteenth that of Luxembourg should be a deciding factor in such decisions."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 7 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 90WH.]
Equally, on 17 September he bizarrely told the Gibraltar Chronicle:
"If people want to get stuck in the past, the future will leave them behind",
whatever that is supposed to mean.
Does the Minister think that those comments convinced the people of Gibraltar that he and his Government have their best interests at heart?
It does not stop there, however. The Minister has form. In the 7 November debate, he said that, if Gibraltarians did not make the choices he wanted,
"Gibraltar will be left behind."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 7 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 89WH.]
He may also remember once saying that he was puzzled that the Government of Gibraltar had taken a boycott stance. No one else is puzzled, given the background of remarks.
There is still more. In evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, he said:
"in modern Europe, to have a territory off the Spanish mainland, indeed linked to the Spanish mainland, some 1,800 miles from Britain somehow integrated into mainland Britain is not what the modern Europe is about."
Whatever the merits of that bizarre observation, the tone is extremely unhelpful. It implies that he believes that the very existence of a Gibraltarian entity separate from Spain is an anachronism that should be abolished, whether the people of Gibraltar like it or not. Does he agree that Gibraltar should be able to have a "modernised" relationship with Spain which leaves the present situation on sovereignty intact? Or does he see that as part of the status quo which must be changed? I would be interested to hear his response.
I wish to refer again to the extremely damaging and unhelpful remark made by the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary on Sky Television. She said that
"there is smuggling on a massive scale."
To my knowledge, not even Spanish commentators have ever claimed that. It is that sort of background mood music coming from Foreign Office Ministers that is destroying a constructive relationship. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today—he declined to do so earlier—of dissociating himself from remarks made by his Parliamentary Private Secretary.
Hon. Members will know of the reports issued at the weekend on the current state of the negotiations. We read that our Government at first appeared to give the Government of Gibraltar the reassurances that would

147WH
allow them to feel comfortable participating in the negotiations. It seemed to Gibraltarians that at long last the Government were seeing sense and agreeing to the formula. We talked earlier about Northern Ireland, so we can talk in the context of the two flags, three voices policy that was first advocated by my noble Friend Lord Hurd. We read that subsequently Foreign Office officials told representatives of the Government of Gibraltar that the result of a Gibraltarian referendum on any proposals agreed by the British and Spanish Governments would not be truly decisive, a point on which I shall elaborate. In other words, the principles agreed to bilaterally—I think that the Minister used the term "a joint declaration"—would remain on the table even if the Gibraltarians rejected the proposals that emerged from the agreed principles.
We need to know whether the joint declaration speaks of joint sovereignty or whether the Minister is prepared to rule that out categorically. I have obviously not seen the letter to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to which the Minister referred, but my understanding is that it did not rule that out. If that is the case, it would be damaging to the successful outcome of any negotiations and hon. Members need immediate reassurances that that will not happen. What have Foreign Office Ministers been playing at? Have they agreed with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar that Gibraltar should have a distinct voice in the talks of a single composite British delegation? If not, why not? If that were the formula, progress could be made. Will the Government produce a done deal with Spain and an agreement of principles which will stand as a milestone, as one Spanish official put it, regardless of whether the people of Gibraltar agree to it in a referendum? That is a crucial point.
We have reason to fear that the agreement of principles, or joint declaration, will propose the sharing of sovereignty, yet the Foreign Secretary told the House on 14 January that no agreement to share sovereignty had been reached. Will the Minister tell us, without any weasel words, whether such an agreement is now being reached? Is it true that there will be a joint declaration and agreement of principles, or whatever it is called, regardless of the result of the referendum? If so, the measure is counter-productive and shows contempt for the democratic process.
Does the Minister realise that such an agreement would also, in international eyes, legitimise Spain's claim on Gibraltar? It is interesting that the whole process is apparently being spurred on by the European Union; begun by the Brussels process, the proposal suddenly gets put in as a mechanism to push it on. The internationalisation of the issue is of great concern. It contradicts the position that every past British Government have adopted—indeed, in a written answer to a question from the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) on 6 November, he admitted that it has been the position of the British Government since the mid-1960s that Gibraltar's right of self-determination is limited only by article X of the treaty of Utrecht. Does the Minister agree that that would no longer be true once Spain's claim is legitimised by an agreement between the two Governments, thus negating for the first time the United Kingdom's historic position? Such an agreement would run the risk of creating irreversible parameters for future negotiations, even if a referendum produced the result that I think is inevitable.
148WH
Does the Minister not understand that an agreement of principles such as a joint declaration that would still stand after a rejecting referendum would betray the guarantee that the Foreign Secretary gave the House on 14 January that the final outcome will be subject to the wishes not of the Spanish or British Governments, but of the people of Gibraltar? I ask the Minister for a clear reassurance on that point.
I find the proposal extraordinary, given that the Minister has been warned repeatedly by the Opposition, the Government of Gibraltar and many of his parliamentary colleagues that the least desirable result would be a done deal between Britain and Spain that would act as a marker for any future negotiations despite its rejection by Gibraltar. Does he not realise that the proposal flies in the face of the people of Gibraltar's rights? He has made much play of wanting a better future for Gibraltar. Of course, we all want that, but how can Gibraltar have a better future when the proposal appears to leave the sword of Damocles hanging over its head, as the Chief Minister put it?
We all want Gibraltar to have better relations with Spain, as do the Government and people of Gibraltar. Spain is one of our closest friends and allies. We all greatly admire its magnificent political and economic achievements over the past generation. Spain is a valued partner in NATO and the European Union, and we have similar attitudes on many common interests and concerns.
I was interested to read the article by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) in The House Magazine, in which he called for "confidence-building measures". I could not agree more. The Minister and his colleagues have proved themselves incapable of such measures. We expect a measure of diplomacy from Foreign Office Ministers, but that has been remarkably absent over the past few months. Instead, as I said, we have had a catalogue of observations and remarks that can only demolish confidence in Gibraltar.
Time and again, I call on the Government to show some sense. Before an irreversible agreement with Spain that the people of Gibraltar do not want is reached, will the Minister agree to the principle of two flags and three voices and continue the negotiations within arrangements with which the Government of Gibraltar will feel comfortable?
Several references have been made to Northern Ireland, but unlike the situation there, we are talking about only three parties between two states, so this matter should be much simpler. Only when detailed arrangements had been agreed by all parties did an agreement between Britain and the Republic of Ireland become bilateral, as we saw in the Good Friday agreement.
As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has suggested to the Foreign Secretary, will the Minister use another successful formula from the Northern Ireland negotiations—nothing is agreed until it is agreed? Does he agree that no satisfactory solution will come from treating the negotiations as purely bilateral? Just as Gibraltar cannot insist on agreements that Spain cannot live with, so Spain should not be able to insist on agreements that Gibraltar cannot live with. With that principle, all parties could move forward

149WH
constructively without feeling that they were committing themselves to doing something irrevocable. In the joint statement with the Spanish Foreign Minister on 20 November, the Foreign Secretary said that he sought a comprehensive agreement, but he will not achieve a just and enduring agreement unless he comes up with something to which the people of Gibraltar can agree. They are the people who will be affected.
The negotiations need not be the unpopular mess that they have turned out to be. I ask the Minister to listen to the criticism by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber that he has heard and will hear this afternoon, and to that by the Government and Opposition in Gibraltar. I ask him to change course before the negotiations do irreversible damage. Public opinion in this country will stand for nothing less.
3.38 pm
Mr. George Howarth: Normally, I have some affection and respect for the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. Normally, he is a responsible spokesman for his party on these matters, and I agree with much of what he said, but the position in which he has put his party with some of the remarks that he has made this afternoon is irresponsible. That is uncharacteristic and regrettable.
There are four broad headings of significance in this debate. The first—this is where we came in with Gibraltar—is its strategic importance. The second covers several issues broadly falling into the constitutional category, including any perceived on-going moral obligations and cultural identity—another issue raised in this afternoon's debate. The third is the practical difficulties—my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned them in his opening speech—arising from living cheek by jowl with Spain, which is antagonistic towards Gibraltar's current status. Telephone facilities were one example. The final issue is the engagement or non-engagement of the Government of Gibraltar and the people of Gibraltar. I shall attempt to cover those four headings as briefly as possible and discuss any parallels between Gibraltar and Northern Ireland.
The Minister will be aware that I recently asked a question about the strategic importance of Gibraltar. The answer I received will not surprise any hon. Member present. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence replied:
"Gibraltar has been and continues to be an important overseas base for the British Armed Forces, and contains valuable support, logistic, communications and training facilities." —[Official Report, 14 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 741W.]
Andrew Mackinlay: Some secret stuff.
Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is helpful. It may surprise him to know that I had almost guessed that myself.
I accept that the position set out by the Minister of State in that reply is an accurate description and responsible attitude for the Government to adopt. However, a century or so ago, in the time of Lord Salisbury, the strategic importance of Gibraltar was
150WH
entirely different It was still a base for British armed forces—presumably different communications, logistic and training purposes were met—but in a wholly different international context with a different relationship obtaining between the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. We were still an imperial power: the Suez canal was still important and we had significant imperial interests in places such as the Indian sub-continent. The nexus of military organisations and agreements was also different. It was before the time of NATO, the European Union and even before the United Nations.
I accept that a strategic interest remains, but it exists because we are already in Gibraltar, not because of where Gibraltar sits in relation to the rest of the world. My main argument is that much of the strategic interest is transferable: it could be done from elsewhere and it is not beyond the wit of the Ministry of Defence to find alternative arrangements within a certain time scale if the people of Gibraltar felt that they could order their affairs differently.
Moral, cultural and other obligations broadly fall under the title of constitutional arrangements. At this point, I want to draw parallels with Northern Ireland. I served as a Northern Ireland junior Minister for two years, and I do not claim to be the sole repository of wisdom on the subject. However, one lesson can be learned from Northern Ireland. Whichever example we consider—the start of the peace process in Northern Ireland during the time of John Major or the start of the Brussels process—we find that, if a party is over prescriptive, possibilities are eliminated.
Although I suspect that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) would disagree, I believe that the strength of the package put to the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the referendum on the Good Friday agreement was that it was constructively ambiguous. It enabled someone who held nationalist views to contemplate an immediate future in the United Kingdom without having to give up their republican views. It enabled the bare majority of Unionists who voted for the agreement to retain their Unionist identity, and recognise that a different set of relationships with the Republic of Ireland would be introduced alongside different constitutional arrangements, such as devolution.
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: I shall finish in a moment. That process enabled people to retain their cultural and national identities and enter into an arrangement that allowed the possibility of peace. It is an imperfect peace, but it exists, and people have put aside some ancient enmities.
Mr. Rosindell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the crucial difference between Northern Ireland and Gibraltar is that Northern Ireland is a divided community? A certain section of the community in Northern Ireland would like to become part of the Republic of Ireland. Barely a single person in Gibraltar wishes it to be a part of Spain, or would want the Madrid Government to have any power over Gibraltar.
Mr. Howarth: I accept the distinction that the hon. Gentleman makes. However, it is not possible to make

151WH
exact comparisons between a situation in one place and one in an entirely different place. That was not my point. Although I accept the differences that he described, we must allow people flexibility to look for a solution. There may be a solution that no one has yet suggested. That is why I used the term "constructively ambiguous", to the bafflement of those sitting here. It requires imagination, and space in which people can exercise it, to foresee how a relationship might develop in future. That is my point on the Northern Ireland process. I accept that the parallel is not exact.
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's comments on cultural identity and the relationship that he explored. Is he aware that an Indian community has been around in Gibraltar for 130 years? That community, of which the Hindu and Muslim communities are part, has made a large contribution. How will he protect their rights under his suggested arrangements? Gibraltar has an identity, which the Indian community has enjoyed and which has been protected for so long. How, under the arrangements that he is floating, will that be protected?
Mr. Howarth: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I am arguing for space in which a new settlement can be developed, not prescribing a blueprint. I entirely accept that Gibraltar is a multicultural society with a long tradition of people from different cultural and religious backgrounds contributing to the richness of Gibraltar's life. That is also true of Spain.
My comparison with Northern Ireland showed that arrangements on equality and human rights are in place so that the identity and rights of people of all backgrounds—not just those of nationalists, Catholics, Unionists or Protestants—are protected, overseen and looked after. Any negotiated settlement could and would address such issues in a way that suits everyone. I make that point not to offer a particular solution but to suggest a process similar, but not the same, to that in Northern Ireland—I accept the distinction made by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) in his intervention—
Geraldine Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Howarth: If my hon. Friend lets me finish my sentence, I will gladly give way. Such a process offers the possibility of bearing fruit.
Geraldine Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Good Friday agreement was agreed to by the people of Northern Ireland? If a joint declaration is agreed to by the people of Gibraltar, we will not have a problem, but we are talking about what happens if it is rejected, and whether it should be imposed on the people.
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have been careful about making a point for no particular end solution, and have not described what arrangements might look like; frankly, I am not in a position to be able to. I have tried to describe a process, and my hon. Friend's intervention is wide of the mark because she assumes that I am defending a particular set
152WH
of arrangements. I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister, and am in favour of the idea that the status quo is probably not a sensible arrangement as regards modern relations between the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. Moreover, it is probably not the most sensible arrangement for the people of Gibraltar.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is another similarity between Gibraltar and Northern Ireland on which he has not touched? For years, the policy of the Foreign Office was to try to get rid of any problems and yield to the greatest pressure point.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman and I are old and good friends, so he will forgive when I say that I do not speak for the Foreign Office. It is a relief not to be speaking for it, or for any Government Department, but to be giving my own views.
It is important to say—I agree to some extent with the critics, but the matter is not necessarily a bone of contention with the Foreign Office—that the people of Gibraltar must have a say in the matter and their views must be factored into any agreement.
Mr. Tynan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Howarth: I seem to be popular for interventions. I am looking to you for guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am usually generous about giving way, but the more I give way, the less time will be available for other hon. Members to be called. Seeing the expression on your face, I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but that will be the last intervention before I conclude my comments.
Mr. Tynan: Let me test my hon. Friend's position. Does he accept that the negotiations between Britain and Spain should involve the Government of Gibraltar before a joint declaration is made to test the proposition in the statements.
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for that intervention, because it leads me to my final point on engagement. My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to an empty chair, which is a good and accurate description of the situation. If the Gibraltar Government were properly engaged in the process, the shape and context of any declaration would probably be entirely different. If three parties were involved in the negotiations instead of two, I am convinced that, although my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary will do everything possible to protect the interests of Gibraltarians, there could be no better guarantee of those interests being advanced than involving the Gibraltar Government in the process and filling the chair. My right hon. Friend is putting the cart before the horse. I am sure that there is a better analogy, but I cannot think of it.
In the interim, it is important for the Gibraltar Government to be involved in the process because, first, the strategic interests, although they still exist, are different from 100 years ago; secondly, any process involves engagement and that must be constructive, with space for a different arrangement to be agreed that suits everyone better than the current arrangements; and thirdly, because of the practical difficulties being experienced by the people of Gibraltar, it is in

153WH
everyone's interests that a new future is carved for Gibraltar that recognises not only its place in the world, but the place of Spain, the United Kingdom and Europe. I appeal to the people and Government of Gibraltar to be constructive and not to sulk in a corner.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The next speaker will be a Front-Bench spokesman and when he has concluded the Front-Bench contributions will have taken up a large part of the debate. It was scheduled to end at 5.30 pm, to which can be added 15 minutes for the Division, so it will end at 5.45 pm. It is my intention to confine the winding-up speeches to a ministerial response and I understand that 10 minutes will be adequate. It may help hon. Members to know that so that they may balance their contributions and enable as many hon. Members as possible to contribute.
3.59 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: I heard what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome this debate. When the subject has been discussed recently, it has been during Back Benchers' time or as the result of private notice questions, and it is welcome that the Government have provided time for this debate. Perhaps the issue will be promoted to the Chamber for discussion.
We are rapidly approaching the 300th anniversary of Britain's involvement with Gibraltar. In three centuries the issues have proved largely intractable, and in three hours this afternoon we are unlikely to find a solution. Nevertheless, seeking a solution must be the objective of everyone who has an interest in Gibraltar and, as we have heard today, there are plenty of options.
The history of the different disputes is well known and well rehearsed, but it is worth focusing on several key issues. What Gibraltar wants out of the process is clear: it wants easier living, whether that is clearer and fairer border controls, the ability to use a phone or better access by air or other modes of transport; it wants greater autonomy, which we can all support; and, most crucially, it wants to maintain its right to self-determination. To achieve any and all of those it will need the United Kingdom and Spain to work alongside it.
It is also evident what the United Kingdom wants out of the process. An easier life might be a cynic's view, and the occasional impression has been created that Gibraltar is an administrative embarrassment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and perhaps something of which it would gladly be rid. More seriously, there is the prize of making progress on several issues, which the Minister was at pains to set out, in the European Union. Crucially, the United Kingdom must want to see things right for Gibraltar and to ensure that it is treated fairly. In all those areas the Government need both Gibraltar and Spain to co-operate with them.
It is clear what the Spanish Government want. Strategic gains would accrue from repossessing the rock over which Spain has a historic desire to reassert its
154WH
sovereignty. However, it, too wants broader progress on the larger European Union issues that are at stake. None of that will be possible without Gibraltar and the United Kingdom. Over too long a period the situation has developed, such that we now have an elaborate diplomatic version of the game of rock, paper, scissors in which each participant is interdependent and has the ability to blunt, smother or skewer the other's progress.
Whichever view is taken of Gibraltar's history, there is plenty of scope from the Utrecht treaty, the 1969 constitution of Gibraltar, the Brussels process and the Barcelona communiqué to justify the arguments for or against. Here in Britain it should not be too difficult for us to agree that the current situation is untenable, that Gibraltar must retain the right to determine its future and that there are greater European Union prizes to be gained if the problem can be resolved.
Mr. Rosindell: The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. He discussed greater prizes in the context of the European Union, but the reason why the Government are determined to push this ahead is because Gibraltar is being used as a bargaining chip to allow deals to be done with Madrid, and the Government want greater concessions at the next intergovernmental conference. That is the real reason why the Government are entering into this betrayal of Gibraltar.
Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I shall allow the Government to answer it rather than being drawn in. I hope that my position is clear and will continue to be clear throughout the debate.
Mr. Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman mentioned self-determination. Precisely what does he mean by that: a referendum or something else?
Mr. Moore: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will develop my thinking and I hope that that will become clear to him.
The current situation is untenable. Gibraltar has to retain the right to self-determination, and there are bigger prizes that Liberal Democrat Members want to be achieved as well. However, nothing can be achieved without dialogue. Although there is some dialogue, the situation remains a mess. We must ask why matters are not progressing. Some think it is because of the dialogue between the UK and Spain that we are getting further away from, not closer to, a solution.
Liberal Democrat Members have long supported the Brussels negotiation process, and we acknowledge that that partly involves talks about sovereignty. Those talks must lead to a proper, fair and free referendum. We cannot allow a rigged referendum or one that takes place under political duress. That is what the people of Gibraltar fear. For as long as Gibraltarians continue to be denied basic rights such as freedom of movement, proper access to telecommunications and participation in European Parliament elections, they will be very wary of, if not absolutely hostile to, any deal cooked up by the two Governments. Equally, for as long as they are unclear what future constitutional status will be offered to them, they are right to be cynical.
The Foreign Secretary has conceded the need to improve life for Gibraltarians. However, what is not at all clear is the British intention regarding the Rock's

155WH
constitutional status. The Minister was not specific in his article in The House Magazine of 28 January, nor has he been today. Nor was Baroness Symons in a debate in another place on 12 December. The Government have been offered several opportunities to spell out Gibraltar's possible future constitutional status, but have taken none of them. It is not clear what offer may come to the people of Gibraltar in due course.
Much reference has been made to Northern Ireland. I was born there, but, alas, did not spend much of my life there. I would prefer not to draw that parallel, but rather one that has a great deal of resonance; the constitutional changes on the mainland of the United Kingdom over the past five years. In Scotland, the arguments over the different options for devolution that were available to us were debated and agonised over for a long time before we got anywhere near a referendum in 1997. People still had differences of opinion, but they were absolutely clear about what they were voting on. That possibility does not appear to exist for the people of Gibraltar.
The Government may respond that the Chief Minister has an open invitation to join the talks, and Liberal Democrat Members would certainly urge him to do so. However, if it is to be a meaningful process, the Gibraltar representatives have to have confidence in it. The Government are right to tackle the issue, but wrong to fail to recognise the limitations of the current process. They must persuade the Spanish to develop some confidence-building gestures. They must also make it clear what constitutional options they may consider, and then Gibraltarians can play their part and join the dialogue.
The Minister has shown that we are making some progress with his announcement today that if the Chief Minister does not join the talks, there will be a chance for negotiations before the outcome of those talks is put to a referendum. That will need to be developed further and the people of Gibraltar will have to have their say on it. He was less clear—I fear that this will undermine the whole process—on what status that negotiated agreement will have should the people of Gibraltar reject it.
In the whole process, there is a catalyst necessary to turn the current vicious cycle into a virtuous one; it is trust. There is too little of it at the moment but without it, all the best intentions in the world will come to nought.
4.10 pm
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I declare an interest; I have visited Gibraltar at the expense of the Gibraltar Government.
The Minister clearly states that he believes in transparency and openness. However, I have a concern, which I hope that he will address when summing up. Transcripts of a private meeting between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Piqué have been made available to certain individuals, but not to anyone
156WH
with Gibraltar group membership. It seems that some hon. Members have been excluded and omitted. I believe that a Parliamentary Private Secretary has had the notes from the Foreign Office and has been given a list, restricted to a few. The notes have been circulated to some but have not been given to the rest of us here. I do not think that that leads to openness or transparency. It returns us to all the suspicion that started over Gibraltar in the first place.
I wish to move on to some of the points that have been raised about Gibraltar, but I shall give way first, if the Minister wishes to respond.
Peter Hain indicated dissent.
Mr. Hoyle: It is unusual for the Minister to speak from a sedentary position. I am more than willing to give way on this important point. It is not about politics, but about ensuring that Members of Parliament are all treated equally. That is all I am speaking about; nothing else.
Gibraltar plays a major military role to this day and has been involved in every war since the second world war, sharing part of the supply chain. That is because it is 1,000 miles from the UK. Recently, the submarine Tireless, which no one really wanted to discuss, had to be repaired in Gibraltar. Nowhere else was available and it was not safe to bring it back to the UK. That is just one example of the strategic importance of Gibraltar.
Anyone who goes between the straits is monitored. Every ship or submarine that progresses through those straits is known. It is as important militarily now as it was 100 years ago in terms of surveillance tactics, especially for movements up into the Gulf. I make that point seriously, because people should be aware of it.
At the weekend, The Times said that talks were going well and that the Minister might be able to attend them. On Sunday, we read headlines such as, "Gibraltar deal is a betrayal". That is the worry. Unfortunately, we do not have much time to enter that debate. I know that many other hon. Members wish to comment, but some points must be made.
The people of Gibraltar must have their rights. People might want to comment one way or the other, but the bottom line is that if there is to be a referendum, why should it not be extended? Why should we not ask the people of Gibraltar to vote for integration, if that is what they wish? It is a possibility that, as Spain accepts Ceuta and Melilla as integrated parts, we could do the same with Gibraltar. That would resolve the issues for everyone. I would go even further. People say that we cannot touch the treaty of Utrecht, but I say that we cannot have it both ways. The Minister wants joint sovereignty, which would mean altering the treaty of Utrecht. Surely Spain, which I welcome as a newcomer to the democratic process, would also allow and support the rights of the people of Gibraltar to have independence, if that is what they wish.

157WH
We ought not to shy away from such points; they must be made. We ought to let the people of Gibraltar choose, and I do not think that anyone in this House who believes in democracy should shy away from negotiating on behalf of the people of Gibraltar. That is important.
4.14 pm
Mr. Andrew MacKay: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who made an important but all too brief contribution. It was deeply significant to hear him criticise what appears to be an unpleasant dirty trick, with selected Members being given special briefings by a Parliamentary Private Secretary, presumably on behalf of the Minister. If that is untrue, the Minister will say so in winding up. Despite always being keen to speak and to give his views at any point at any time in any magazine, the Minister has been remarkably silent. He mumbled away and failed to intervene when the hon. Member for Chorley offered him the chance.
That follows a pattern, and I was a little perturbed by the point of order of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), who I am glad to see has returned to the debate. Bearing in mind the remarks of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), I was not alone in inferring that as rather threatening. There was an implication that there is something wrong about Members of this House visiting Gibraltar as guests of its Government to learn more about a territory for which we still have responsibility. I speak as someone who has not visited Gibraltar as a guest of its Government, although I have been there on several occasions at my own expense. I did not like the comment, because it was a Whip's or PPS's nark's intervention and an attempt to threaten Members.
Those who have been here for some time, as you have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will recall how much debate in the House has benefited from Members visiting Hong Kong. When I was Tom King's PPS, I used to arrange for Members of the House to visit Northern Ireland and, thereafter, as the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) will confirm, there was much more informed debate. They were paid for by the Government of the day and were all-party visits, so I hope that we can knock that point on the head once and for all. It was a nasty and unpleasant point of order.
I will now go back nearly 25 years—more years, I fear, than any other Member in this Chamber can—when, as the youngest Member of Parliament at the time, I spoke from the Opposition Benches in a debate about the accession of Spain and Portugal to what was then the European Community. I spoke vigorously in favour of their accession, and it is easy to forget today that Spain and Portugal were then fledgling democracies. There was a real possibility that they would fall back into military dictatorship, and indeed it was only the courageous intervention of King Juan Carlos that stopped a rather buffoonish military coup, which included a strange colonel with a funny hat waving a gun in front of the Speaker of the Spanish Parliament.
It is easy to forget that we were also under a huge Soviet threat at the time. Communism was sweeping across Europe and there was a large Communist party
158WH
in Portugal and a significant one in Spain. I believed then, as I do now, that it was important for both countries to become our partners in the European Community. I remember being intervened on by the then right hon. Member for Down, South, the Ulster Unionist J. Enoch Powell, who took the opposite view and believed that it would do further harm to the European Community. We hear those views expressed again now in terms of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and other countries, and it is important that we bring them into our democratic fold.
I say all that because I am delighted at the success of democratic Spain. I have watched in admiration as Spain punches its weight in Europe and the world, as well as in NATO. I speak as a friend and admirer of modern Spain, someone who holidays there regularly and enjoys meeting the Spanish people. However, I do not say that at the expense of the people of Gibraltar, or with the aim of tearing up the treaty of Utrecht.
A statement on Gibraltar was made a few weeks ago on the Floor of the House. The most significant contribution was, as is quite often the case, from the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). Sadly, he is not with us today. He asked the Foreign Secretary what was the point of conducting negotiations with the Spanish if there was nothing to negotiate. I agree entirely; the negotiations are pointless and, in giving false hope, they are unfair on the Spanish Government and people. This House will not sell out Gibraltar.
Only if agreed principles and an agreed framework are reached in the Brussels talks will the negotiations be of any advantage to Spain, but those principles would be put to the people of Gibraltar and rejected. The Gibraltarians' worry is not that the referendum will not be won—everyone knows that it will be won overwhelmingly—but that Spain will subsequently have a legitimised claim because it will have on the table agreed principles and an agreed framework to negotiate with the British Government. That is the harm and the damage. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) rightly said, that is what it is all about.
I listened carefully to the Minister when he said that it would be damaging to Gibraltar if an agreement were not reached. I listened equally carefully to his response to the significant intervention of the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). Threats, coercion and duress were mentioned and it was suggested that the people of Gibraltar should have, as an absolute right, freedom of movement, open telecommunications, open air links and an open airport. Those are the democratic and simple rights of people in any country in the world, but the people of Gibraltar cannot have them unless they do a deal on their sovereignty. The suggestion is that those rights will be available and that life will be more comfortable for the people of Gibraltar, provided the they vote the right way. That is election under duress and it is absolutely wrong.
I listened carefully to the Minister when he said that the lack of an agreement in Gibraltar undermines our own interests. I am not sure why. He then strangely went on to refer to the 500,000 British nationals living in Spain. Is he suggesting that our friend and ally, our partner in the European Union—democratic Spain—will threaten all the Brits living in Marbella, Torremolinos and Fuengirola? Should we be bringing

159WH
them home, as in the case of Zimbabwe? What an absurd and irrelevant suggestion from the Minister. What single other reason can there be for mentioning the 500,000 British subjects who live in Spain? Will the Minister tell us why?
Peter Hain: Because it is a fact, to which I drew the attention of Members.
Mr. MacKay: That rather confirms my point. It is irrelevant. Endless facts can always be provided, but they are not necessarily relevant. It was suggested that British interests could be undermined if we did not negotiate and, in the next breath, the Minister reminded us of the fact—we all know it is true—that approximately half a million British citizens live in Spain. It was suggested that they might be under duress. That is clearly crazy. What was the point of mentioning it in the same context? It was another red herring.
A further red herring that has been dealt with in part by powerful interventions from the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) is that strange comparison with Northern Ireland. It was made by the Foreign Secretary during his statement and was shot down by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) and it was made again by the Minister today. Let me take the Minister slowly through the facts. He is keen to have facts.
First, a significant minority of people in Northern Ireland aspire to be part of a united Ireland. That creates genuine tensions and problems. Secondly, for over 30 years, there have been what are described as the troubles in Northern Ireland. A large number of people have been murdered or maimed and a significant number of people have been forced to leave the Province. The situation in Gibraltar bears no similarity at all. Comparisons between Gibraltar and Northern Ireland are wrong. They are a typical muddying of the water by the Foreign Office. Those of us who know a significant amount about Northern Ireland know that there is no point in making any comparisons.
I am anxious that other colleagues can speak too and so I will conclude by giving a word of warning to both the Minister and, perhaps more importantly, the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin). They should be careful. There is no chance of getting this sort of measure through the House, as they do not have the support of the majority of hon. Members.
4.26 pm
Andrew Mackinlay: As I mentioned on a point of order, I want to pick up on Members of Parliament's access to this important part of the EU. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) touched an important button by raising this. First, Members do go at the invitation and expense of the Gibraltar Government and we have to declare it. There is a special arrangement for overseas territories. I was partly instrumental in that, persuading Tony Newton, who recognised that there was a moral obligation on hon. Members to visit overseas territories and the British Government did not want to pick up the cost.
I have pursued this matter time and time again, including with my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) when he was Parliamentary Private
160WH
Secretary to the Leader of the House in the last Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston and I can go to any part of the EU, at the expense of Parliament, but the one place we cannot visit is Gibraltar, notwithstanding it is an EU issue in itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove will remember that we were promised that this issue would be reviewed. I hope that the Minister will at least take that board. It is perverse that I can go to Edinburgh at the expense of this place, and indeed I do, but I cannot go to Gibraltar. I often go to Northern Ireland but we cannot go to this important place where there are British subjects who are disfranchised and who have no access to this House of Commons.
The question is not "integration" but the fact that these people, uniquely, are not represented in their national legislature. Their Prime Minister is our Prime Minister; their Foreign Secretary is our Foreign Secretary; their Defence Secretary is our Defence Secretary. If we go to war they cannot say, "If you don't mind we'll sit this one out." They are committed. It is nonsense that they have no access to the legislature on matters germane to them. In the meantime they are dependent on the surrogacy of hon. Members to protect and promote their interests, which I think is unhealthy. That democratic deficit should be an acute embarrassment to the United Kingdom.
The Minister suggested why there is growing ministerial interest in Gibraltar. The reason predates him. There was little interest in Gibraltar in all the years prior to 1997. The last time that the Foreign Affairs Committee addressed this before Labour came into power then was at the time of Anthony Kershaw. He even predates the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). It was a long time ago, and there has been no interest—until, that is, at the first European summit after the 1997 election. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary overlooked an important codicil in the negotiations impacting on Gibraltar. There was one hell of a row in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which triggered several reports and other hon. Members' growing interest in the matter.
I asked the Foreign Secretary when he was Home Secretary if it would be possible to extend the franchise to the people of Gibraltar in relation to the European Union. His advisers said no. My right hon. Friend said in the House of Commons that it could not, and should not, be done. That illustrates that often people who advise and counsel Ministers are bonkers; they have no idea of the basic tenets of European law. They were subsequently proved wrong. I make a little prediction—I shall refer to it again; it will be in Hansard—that there will be a challenge to the fact that these people are not represented in their national legislature because it conflicts with the standard western European democratic norms and our human rights legislation.
When Baroness Symons was Minister with responsibility for the overseas territories, she introduced a White Paper and in evidence to the Select Committee canvassed the idea that there should be some access for people from overseas territories to petition at the Bar of the House of Commons. But we heard no more about it. The Government have no great interest in these people and there is a continuing, unacceptable denial of their democratic rights.

161WH
I visited Spain recently—I did not have to declare it—and met Government Ministers and colleagues in the Spanish Parliament. Their expectations are high; like the Minister, I too am concerned about our bilateral relations with Spain. I believe that this Brussels process will all end in tears. Far from advancing our mutual interests and collaboration with our Spanish friends, there will be a massive let down, which will set back so much that is mutually important to us.
Her Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government have overlooked some of the practicalities. The Minister spoke about giving Gibraltar access to the European market. After the royal naval base was withdrawn it suited the United Kingdom of the day not to make a Treasury subvention but to encourage Gibraltar to be self-sufficient. It was argued and promoted in the House that Gibraltar should develop its financial sector and other advantages that would attract business and commerce and make it self-sufficient. I am open to correction, but I cannot see how that can be reconciled with an open market and with Schengen. What will come in its place? Will there be a massive subvention of social security payments to the people of Gibraltar? I know all the arguments about the La Linea region becoming a powerhouse, but that requires much more explanation. There will be a depressing effect on the region; the economy and income of the people of Gibraltar would collapse if there were to be total integration into the European framework.
History should have been different but it was this place that decided what happened. This place created some of the problems of Ireland, but our generation must deal with them and it ain't that simple. There is no magic wand that can be waved to unscramble the fact that we have a special economy—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is addressing the Chair.
Andrew Mackinlay: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There was a reference to Ireland; I do not want to labour that point as it is the difference between an apple and an orange, save for one thing: I predict that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is more likely to be elected Pope than the people of Gibraltar are to accept joint sovereignty or sovereignty.
The Minister has been very good, and I hope he will take this opportunity to stop the traducing of Gibraltar in the press by some politicians, often through ignorance. The Foreign Secretary is the law-and-order Minister in Gibraltar and the Treasury oversees the financial sector; any criticism in those areas would be criticisms of them. We must stop journalists, politicians and other people, especially Spanish spokespersons, pretending that there is something rotten in Gibraltar. That is simply not so. There may be things that they do not like, but their criticisms are false. If they had validity, they would be aimed at the Foreign Secretary and others in Whitehall.
I thought about the matter on my way to the House today; indeed, I lay awake last night thinking about it. I remembered a prayer that I was taught: "Lord, give me the courage to change the things that I can, the serenity
162WH
to accept the things that I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference." That is what the Minister should say before he goes to bed tonight, because he will not be able to dragoon the people of Gibraltar, who are British citizens and who have the same inalienable rights as his constituents in Neath and mine in Thurrock, into a relationship with Spain that involves joint sovereignty or Spanish sovereignty.
Mr. Brian Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Andrew Mackinlay: I will sit down soon. Mr. Deputy Speaker referred to the winding-up speeches, but this is an unwinding speech.
Mr. Jenkins: I have listened to several Members who seem to believe that the end game is to absorb Gibraltar into Spain; I am not sure whether my hon. Friend believes that. The end game in this round—[HON. MEMBERS: "This round."]—at the behest of a European Committee is to get two members to agree a common accord. That would become the policy of the European Union and is the framework that we must deal with.
Andrew Mackinlay: Our hopes and expectations are not that we will have discord. We would like to have good relationships between Spain, the United Kingdom and this strange jurisdiction, which is unique in the European Union. I am trying to say that it ain't that simple. The Government are extremely naïve to think that it is. By embarking on the process, they will fail. They will knock back our bilateral relations with Spain, irritations will continue and Spain will, perhaps, read the signals incorrectly.
My notes refer to the fact that the Minister introduced sterile knocking of the Conservatives. I hope that he will accept that I do not mean that disrespectfully. In a way, both parties are to blame, because they have both sent the wrong signals. The Conservatives sent signals to the Argentine Junta, and we saw what happened: they misread them. The signals that we are sending to Spain about their expectations could be a big mistake.
It is a great tragedy that we did not deal with the issue when Spain wished to join the European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I believe that it was a Conservative Administration at the time. As a condition of entry, we should have tightened up the status of our friends and fellow citizens in Gibraltar.
The Minister said that there are four pillars to what he is trying to achieve for Gibraltar. First, safeguarding the Gibraltarian way of life: I would hope that that would be automatic and "understood." I imagine that he is referring to the Gibraltarians' relationship with the Crown and the symbols of Britishness. Secondly, normalisation of relations with Spain: I have acknowledged that that is a laudable aspiration, but I do not think that it can be achieved.
Thirdly, self-government: it is not as if the good people of Gibraltar lie awake at night thinking that if only they could get rid of the Attorney-General, who is an official member sitting in the Legislature, there would be heaven on earth in Gibraltar, or what joy there would be to have a revamped constitution. Of course, constitutions are important, but that is not a carrot to

163WH
the people of Gibraltar. I would hope that it was open for them to invite the House of Commons to modernise their constitution at any time. They have full internal self-government at present, and their stewardship of it is extraordinarily good. There should be no imputation that they are negligent in the way that they conduct their affairs. Constitutions should be revisited by this place, but it is not a great carrot to hang in front of people to give them something that they have already.
Finally, sovereignty: the Minister has been at pains to insist that we are not going to surrender sovereignty. The House welcomes that and does not think that, in any event, it would be possible for him to cede sovereignty. However, we need to be clear when the talks are concluded that we are not left with something that falls short of sovereignty, or that does not require primary legislation but has shifted the dice in favour of Spain. That could give the Spanish false hopes that they could attain sovereignty in the not too distant future, and would make us feel that these Britons, who are so important to us strategically, had been betrayed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who is not in his place, referred to the strategic nature of Gibraltar. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) reminded us how useful the relationship with Gibraltar was in the Falkland Islands conflict. It is also right to remind us how Spain will not let HMS Invincible go into Gibraltar on a NATO exercise because it might offend Spain: a situation that I find repugnant. Last year, it was too perilous to take the disabled submarine through the bay of Biscay and it was essential to repair it in Gibraltar. Gibraltar will always be important to the United Kingdom's interests, and that must be recognised and reflected in how we respond to the interests of the people of Gibraltar. There must be no cession of sovereignty to Spain, because that would not be a friendly act to Spain in the long term, and it would be a great betrayal of the Gibraltarians, to whom we owe so much.
4.40 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) who has made some excellent points, not least in his opening remarks about the importance of Members of the House of Commons being able to visit Gibraltar to know what is going on there.
Mr. Hendrick: When the hon. Gentleman referred to my point of order, he gave the impression that there was no way to pay other than through the Government of Gibraltar. Many Members make trips to other countries under their own steam using their own funds. I do not see why that should pose such a great difficulty to the hon. Gentleman, or to anyone else for that matter.
Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman has entirely missed the point. I wonder who told him to say that in the first place. He has, however, strangely echoed the point that I am about to make. I do not need to declare this, but some years ago I went to Gibraltar as a guest of the Government of Gibraltar. I have visited Gibraltar on many other occasions, as my cousin lives there. I spend a lot of time there and my impression of what the people of Gibraltar think about their current predicament comes directly from my cousin, her friends and
164WH
associates, not from reading articles or being told by representatives of the Government of Gibraltar. That does not alter the fact that it is vital that Members of this House know what is going on there, as Gibraltar has no other voice. The people of Gibraltar are British and they deserve to be listened to as much as any British person living in the British isles or any other part of the world.
Peter Hain indicated assent.
Mrs. Laing: I am glad to see the Minister nodding his assent. The debate is not about 30,000 people living several hundred miles away, but about basic principles of democracy and how the British Government deal with British people wherever they are. It is the thin end of the wedge if the British Government are allowed to deal with British people who happen to live in Gibraltar less respectfully and democratically than British people here or in other parts of the world. If we give in on this point and allow the Government to treat the people of Gibraltar as if they do not matter because there are only 30,000 of them, where does it stop? Where do we draw the line? That is why the debate is so important.
I have heard the Minister speak about Gibraltar on several occasions, and I find myself asking again and again what he means. He likes to use words that might have one meaning in one context, but another meaning in another context. I wonder whether the Government of Spain and their representatives consider that the Minister is using words to mean exactly what he wants us to think he means. Indeed, he says that these words mean what he says they mean, but that is not good enough. They must mean what we all understand them to mean. In other words, everyone—the people of Gibraltar and the Spanish and British Governments—has to use the same language. [Laughter.] Some Labour Members seem to find that amusing, but it is not; it is deadly serious.
The way in which the Government spin and use certain words and phrases is a disgrace. It is time that we pinned the Minister down by making him explain exactly what he means. I shall begin with the word "sovereignty". He has assured us on several occasions, as has the Foreign Secretary, that sovereignty is not at issue and not up for negotiation in the talks. However, the last edition of The Sunday Telegraph said something different, and before anyone says, "You shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers", let me assure the Committee that of course I do not.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: Certainly not in The Sunday Telegraph.
Mrs. Laing: Nor do I believe everything in The Sunday Telegraph, but which statement is true? Is it true, as the Minister and Foreign Secretary have said in the past, that sovereignty is not up for grabs? Or is it true, as The Sunday Telegraph says, that the Foreign Secretary said that all aspects of Gibraltar's future, including sovereignty, were up for discussion?
Peter Hain: From the beginning, we have always said, as did Baroness Thatcher when she initiated the process, that the issue of sovereignty is on the table. Equally, however, we have made it clear that we are not about to hand Gibraltar over to Spain. That is completely outside

165WH
the agenda that we are prepared to discuss with the Spanish Government. Our position is nothing new: we have consistently made it clear on the Floor of the House, so it is on the record.
Mrs. Laing: I am pleased to have the Minister's words. Is he saying categorically that The Sunday Telegraph report is wrong?
Peter Hain: I did not read The Sunday Telegraph and I do not have it in front of me. If the hon. Lady passes it to me, I will have a look at it and reply.
Mrs. Laing: I am not saying that what The Sunday Telegraph says should matter; I am simply saying that it states:
"The Foreign Secretary said that all aspects of Gibraltar's future, including sovereignty, were up for discussion."
That is exactly what the report says.
Peter Hain: There is nothing new about that. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have repeatedly said—I said it this afternoon—that sovereignty is one of the four pillars that we are discussing. The Conservative Government discussed it as well. The point is that that does not determine the outcome.
Mrs. Laing: I am grateful for the Minister's clear explanation. My understanding was that on previous occasions, in meetings both private and public, he and his right hon. Friend said that there was much to be discussed by the Governments of Spain and Britain, but that the sovereignty of Gibraltar would not be altered. I appreciate that the Minister is saying that my understanding was wrong. It is clear that the issue of sovereignty is up for discussion.
Mr. Hugo Swire: Is the Minister not showing exactly the tendency to which my hon. Friend referred, which is to be disingenuous with the use of words? My understanding is that we never allowed the Spanish to discuss sovereignty with us when we were in government.
Mrs. Laing: It is certainly the case, as I have feared, that the Minister's words have not been clear, but I am grateful that in the last couple of minutes, in answer to my questions, he has made it clear that the issue of sovereignty is up for discussion.
Peter Hain: I am sorry, but I do not know whether the hon. Lady understands words when I say them. Sovereignty has always been on the table, defined as part of the Brussels process. That does not imply any particular outcome. I repeat that we will not agree to Gibraltar's being integrated into Spain or to hand Gibraltar over to Spain, and the hon. Lady must not imply that in her request for clarification of what I mean by sovereignty being on the table. Sovereignty was on the table under Baroness Thatcher and has been on the table in every discussion on the issue, but that does not mean that we accept Spain's version of sovereignty—which, as the hon. Lady sees it, is to reincorporate Gibraltar.
Mrs. Laing: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Contrary to what he says, I must question
166WH
him as I am doing—that is my duty. What the Minister has been saying has been unclear, but he has now clarified it, for which I am grateful.
I find it strange that the Labour Government are praying in aid Baroness Thatcher. It is true that the Brussels process and the negotiations began under her Government, as did many other excellent policies that the Government wish to overturn. It is ridiculously inconsistent for them to argue that because Baroness Thatcher began the process, it must be right. Although I totally agree with that argument, I am extremely surprised that the Minister does. The Minister overlooks a fundamentally important point: Baroness Thatcher and her Government may have begun the process, but they never envisaged that it would come to this and they never suggested that a Conservative Government would give away the sovereignty of the British people in Gibraltar.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the leader of the Gibraltarians, Chief Minister Peter Caruana, who is one of the most intelligent and articulate men whom I have met and a distinguished barrister, is of the decided opinion that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is in jeopardy as a result of the agreement between the Government and Spain? Should not his views be respected? I respect them.
Mrs. Laing: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I share his respect for the views of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. I also respect Mr. Caruana's forensic skills in working out what "sovereignty" means in relation to Gibraltar.
Mr. Bryant: Perhaps the hon. Lady would then explain why it has taken her such a long time to understand the simple statement made in a public communiqué— copy of which I am holding—by the Spanish Foreign Secretary Mr. Piqué that,
"This overall agreement will cover all outstanding issues, including those of cooperation and sovereignty".
Mrs. Laing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enlightening me on the contents of that communiqué.
Mr. Bryant: It is a public communiqué.
Mrs. Laing: I have never seen it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Seated interventions are undesirable.
Mrs. Laing: I confess that I do not read every communiqué issued by the Foreign Secretary of Spain, but I realise that that is an important one. If the hon. Gentleman were kind enough to give me a copy, I should be delighted to have one.
It is not that I lack understanding of the word "sovereignty"—I know what I believe it to mean, as doubtless does the hon. Gentleman. I am endeavouring to tie down what the Minister holds it to mean. He has been helpful in answering our questions on that and we have made progress—we make progress on the semantics, the vocabulary and the legal position, but we have not made progress on safeguarding the position of

167WH
the people of Gibraltar. They should be more concerned after the debate than they were before it about their chances of holding on to sovereignty of their territory.
The second word about which I am concerned because of the vagueness of its meaning is "referendum". We all know that the answer given in a referendum depends on the question. The hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) made this point well earlier. It seems that the Government intend to put before the people of Gibraltar a question not on the principles that matter to them, but merely on the secondary issues that would flow from a bilateral agreement between the British and Spanish Governments, either with or without consultation with Gibraltar. The Minister is muttering again, and I will always give way to him as a matter of courtesy if he wants me to.
Once again, we have a concept of referendum. The Government want the people of Gibraltar—and the people of the United Kingdom—to believe that they will, by way of referendum, be given a say in their future. That is not the case. It is now clear that the matters on which the people of Gibraltar will be consulted are only the secondary matters, not the principles. That would be a bogus and meaningless referendum, which would pull the wool over the eyes of the people of Gibraltar and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Laing: No, I have already given way and I must hurry because many other Members want to speak this afternoon.
It was sad to hear the Minister and other Government Members speaking about the problems of border queues, telephone lines and air services in Gibraltar as if they were some kind of natural disaster, like problems with flooding in third world countries. They are not natural disasters or phenomena that happen only in Gibraltar, but issues that have arisen only because of the actions of the Government of Spain. There would not be border queues if the Spanish Government did not create them. There would not be problems with telephone lines or mobile phones if the Spanish Government were not standing in the way of the people of Gibraltar having decent rights in the same way as everyone else in Europe and, indeed, the world. There would not be problems with air services if they were not created by rules laid down by the Spanish Government.
With three rules of a red pen, the Spanish Government could solve the problems tomorrow if they so wanted, but they do not want to. To them, they are important bargaining counters. By giving in and treating those problems as negotiating points, the Government are simply succumbing to bullying. The large country of Spain has bullied the small territory of Gibraltar for decade after decade. If we give into the bullying of the people in Gibraltar, where does it stop? Where do we not give in to bullying of British people? We never have given in to such pressure, and it is a total disgrace that the Minister should be considering giving in to it now.
Mr. Pope: Some of the hon. Lady's comments are a little irresponsible and will inflame matters greatly on
168WH
the Rock. When the Minister was before the Foreign Affairs Committee only recently, he reiterated the words of the 1969 agreement that there is no possibility of handing over the sovereignty of Gibraltar to another state against the free and democratic wishes of its people. That position has not changed since 1969. It is here in Hansard, and I will show it to the hon. Lady later. Does she accept that point?
Mrs. Laing: I accept that what the hon. Gentleman has said is absolutely true, and his integrity is beyond reproach. However, the people of Gibraltar rightly fear—as we do too on their behalf—that although some kind of sovereignty might be protected on paper, their way of life would be considerably affected by the present proposals that the Government have put forward jointly with the Spanish Government. Although what the hon. Gentleman says is correct to the letter, the actual effect would not be what he and his colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee might hope.
I am surprised that the Minister is still relying on his argument that an offer has been made to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to participate in talks. It sounds good, but it is not a genuine offer because, as the Minister knows, the conditions imposed on the Chief Minister make it impossible for him to accept.
I agree with the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) that the real parallel in constitutional change is that of devolution in Scotland and Wales. During 1997 and 1998, I campaigned furiously against a Scottish Parliament. A full campaign was held in Scotland and Wales on devolution. The late right hon. Donald Dewar said repeatedly that he wanted to implement the settled will of the Scottish people. I did not agree with that will, I still do not, and I do not suppose I ever will. However, the then Secretary of State for Scotland and the Government were right. They consulted the Scottish people and carried out a referendum that was respected and accepted by all of us.
A fair and honest referendum should be carried out in Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar should be more involved in carrying that forward. If British people in Scotland and Wales are treated fairly by this Parliament, so should the British people in Gibraltar.
5.2 pm
Mr. Chris Bryant: It is with some amusement that I advise the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that the prayer to which he referred was originally in Spanish, and comes from St. Teresa of Avila.
One of the most important questions for us to consider is why we should change the current arrangements in Gibraltar. I have long believed that the current situation is a patent anachronism. It owes more to Queen Anne than it does to Queen Elizabeth II, and it owes more to the Franco era than it does to the era of Aznar and Juan Carlos. For that reason alone, it is time

169WH
for change. The situation must change because the current arrangements lead to a wholly unacceptable series of restrictions for the people of Gibraltar.
Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend mentions the anachronism of Gibraltar's colonial status. However, there is a danger that it might have joint colonial status with two masters.
Mr. Bryant: I shall consider whether there should be one, two or however many masters, or mistresses, later. We should not be permanently obsessed about what happened in 1704 or 1713. We should be thinking and talking about the future. Unacceptable restrictions apply to the people of Gibraltar, and we want to ensure that they become a thing of the past. The present situation is injurious to British foreign policy, and it would be a mistake for the Government not to move forward to resolve the situation in the interests of all British people.
The present situation is understandably troubling for the people of Spain, if for no other reason than that they have an onshore-offshore tax haven where thousands of Spanish businesses make their homes. That must be a troubling issue for them, just as we would be troubled if the Isle of Anglesey were to have a completely separate tax status.
Mr. Swire: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, with his privileged information on what is really going on in these negotiations, would enlighten us on whether the Chancellor is putting pressure on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for some sort of settlement because of Gibraltar's peculiar tax position, in the wake of a case being launched in the European Court of Justice.
Mr. Bryant: The hon. Gentleman must have mistaken me for a Treasury Minister, which I am not. I have no idea about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's views on the matter. All I am saying is that it is understandable that the Spanish people are worried by an onshore-offshore tax haven. In years to come the situation on value added tax and other taxes in Gibraltar will change, which is why it is important for the people of Gibraltar that we achieve a resolution in the next few years. Without one, I worry that Gibraltar's economy will falter in three to five years.
I want to demolish a few myths that sadly Government Members, but also Opposition Members, are keen to perpetuate from what I presume to be honest intentions. It has been mentioned several times today that there will be a stitch-up between the two Governments concerned, and that there will be no referendum. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said earlier that she was worried that the Government were going to propose something that was not a proper referendum and that there would be a stitch-up, but they have stated:
"We stick absolutely by the 1969 resolution that makes it clear that there should not be a change in the constitutional status of Gibraltar without the consent of the people there."—[Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 967.]
170WH
Those were my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's words which I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber, heard on 28 November 2001.
Like everyone else, if the Government were considering a fait accompli, I would urge them not to because on the whole people do not vote for faits accomplis. Both Government and Opposition Members are keen to see a resolution voted for by the people of Gibraltar, without whom it will be impossible to move forward.
The second myth that I want to demolish is that a referendum will be held under duress. What is a referendum that is or is not held under duress? Hon. Members might bounce up and down saying, "You are going to try to blackmail them. If they do not do what we want, there will be more restrictions." It is clear that there will be a free and open democratic process on the referendum. The Minister has provided us with strong reassurances that if Mr. Caruana refuses to take part in the current talks, there will be a further stage of consultation. The Government are moving in the right direction.
Mr. Tynan: If negotiations take place, as at present, between Britain and Spain, and an agreement is reached that the people of Gibraltar find unacceptable and reject, it would stay on the table, which would be to the detriment of the people of Gibraltar and would mean that they were under duress to accept its conditions.
Mr. Bryant: If such an agreement were to fall, the proposal would be dead. The Governments of Spain and Britain and the people of Gibraltar would want to know what the future held, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. I hope that the Government will be successful in putting to the people of Gibraltar proposals that they wholeheartedly want to endorse and vote for.
Mr. Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bryant: No. I want to make progress. Many other hon. Members want to speak and I have already taken several interventions.
Mr. Francois: The hon. Gentleman said that last time.
Mr. Bryant: It is not a personal matter, although I could make it one.
The next myth that I want to abolish is about the separate seat for the Government of Gibraltar. Whether we refer to two flags or three voices or something else, it seems clear that there should be three people sitting at the table. There should not be a stitch-up before the meeting, but open, genuine discussions. I do not think that they should take place in the glare of publicity because, as anyone who has watched the process in Northern Ireland or any diplomatic process knows, the only way that anything significant can be achieved is if talks are in closed camera.
Mr. Rosindell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bryant: I will give way one final time. I am being very generous.
Mr. Rosindell: In view of the very reassuring comments that the hon. Gentleman makes, will he

171WH
retract what he said to me on Thursday 10 January—that, for all he cared, Gibraltar could be given back to Spain and the Falkland Islands to Argentina?
Mr. Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make me recall events that happened on the day before my 40th birthday. To make me remember anything that I said during that week would be pushing it.
Mr. Rosindell: Do you deny making those remarks?
Mr. Bryant: The hon. Gentleman should address the Chair, not me directly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bryant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I feel strongly that the Spanish Government have made a mistake over many years in their failure to woo the people of Gibraltar. Many hon. Members have referred to ways in which they could start to do that, by sorting out delays at the border, sorting out telephones and regularising the situation concerning sports. There is a further way in which the Spanish Government could do significant wooing, which has similarities to the situation in Ireland. If they renounced their long-term aspiration of sole Spanish sovereignty, which would parallel the situation in the Republic of Ireland, it would go a long way towards reassuring the people of Gibraltar.
Many hon. Members have referred to joint sovereignty. I confess that I find that an attractive proposition. I believe that joint sovereignty in perpetuity, with no suggestion, as there was in the Matutes proposals, that Gibraltar would eventually go to Spain, would be a possibility. It is worth pointing out, however, that joint sovereignty is just a headline. The words mean nothing until questions are examined, such as what to do about passports, driving licences, the economic future of the country, Schengen, and a series of other issues.
My plea is for discussions. I should prefer it if Mr. Caruana were to join them immediately and I hope that the Government will do everything that they can during the next few days to make that possible for him. If he still feels unable to join the discussions, they should proceed none the less and be followed by a specific consultation process with the people and Government of Gibraltar before any further proposals are put to any kind of referendum.
5.13 pm
Mr. Hugo Swire: Having listened to the Minister and other Government Members, I am reminded of the Fats Waller song that starts:
"Won't you come into my parlour said the spider to the fly?"
Fans of Fats Waller will remember that it continues:
"Poor fly, poor fly, because he went into the parlour, unsuspecting little fly."
The fly in this instance is not Spanish, unfortunately, but Gibraltarian. Let us face it, what we have heard this afternoon, and are seeing at the moment, is the heavy pounding of the Government public relations machine, intending to soften up the enemy before the final attack.
172WH
Whatever the Minister says, there is evidently a strong desire to terminate what the Government see as an embarrassing legacy of our colonial history.
The talks have been going on in one way or another for the past 18 years, but only recently has there been a feeling that there has been a done deal between the Prime Minister and Spanish Prime Minister Aznar. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to enlighten us further on some of those conversations. The Minister has been a little high-handed in some of his comments, given that all we are seeking to do is fulfil our role as Opposition Back Benchers in holding the Executive to account. I suggest that a deal has been done in return for Mr. Aznar's support of the Prime Minister's European Union ventures, not least in the liberalisation of the markets, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) alluded. We shall see.
Unfortunately for the Government, and despite their attempts to depict this as an inevitable step towards modernisation or harmonisation, there is an issue of principle here that sits uncomfortably with their attempt to bounce the Gibraltarians into a deal.
Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman say on what basis he believes that a deal has been stitched up? Accusations have been flying around for which I have heard no backing and no evidence.
Mr. Swire: I hope to address those points later in my speech. I was simply giving my views, which are widely shared, not least by the Spanish press, including El Pais.
It is worth remembering that the last time Gibraltar voted on the issue in 1967, 12,138 were in favour of continuing ties to Britain and 44 were against—a convincing result—and I suspect that a new vote would look similar. At that time, a British diplomat said:
"we recognise that it is going to be very difficult to convince the Gibraltarians that the option we offer them will be the best."
Despite Spain's welcome move from dictatorship to democracy, I do not believe that much has changed in the intervening 35 years. What certainly has not changed is Spain's continuing bullying and intimidation, and now it seems that that behaviour is to be rewarded. I have always found it somewhat ironic that the Minister, who originally made his name as an outspoken and, it must be said, highly effective critic of the bullying domination by a minority over a majority has now come full circle and is seemingly happy to live with the results of a majority successfully bullying a minority. That is certainly a voyage of self-discovery. I was amazed to hear him admit that part of the reason for the negotiations was because we had not been able to persuade Spain to soften its approach to Gibraltar. That is warped logic.
I went to Gibraltar just before Christmas, after my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I declare to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) that it was at my own expense. I talked to journalists, to people who work on the Rock and to those like the police who serve on it. All were of the same opinion: that the Government have already stitched them up. Symbols of their historic links, such as the figure at the entrance to Gibraltar holding the keys and the Union flag flying from the top of the Rock, had already disappeared. Token symbolism, perhaps, to

173WH
critics, but to the people their removal represented part of the softening-up process—the sense of inevitability that the Government are trying to create, as they are in the domestic population over the question of entry into the euro. Indeed, if this debate is about anything, it is about Europe. Spain continues to block some EU legislation because of its impact on Gibraltar—an irritation to the powers that be in Brussels.
The plans that followed the November meeting between Josep Piqué and the Foreign Secretary will give Gibraltar 100,000 extra phone lines and allow access to health services in Spain. However, that is cosmetic because Gibraltarians are entitled to those anyway. Once again, Spain is contravening EU legislation.
There appears to be embarrassment about how Britain first acquired Gibraltar through the treaty of Utrecht, but little parallel discussion about how Spain acquired its two enclaves in north Africa, Ceuta and Melilla, both of which are claimed by Morocco. I suspect that that is because the Spanish Government do not share this Government's embarrassment about their colonial past.
I agree with the Government that we need to look forward, but we should not ignore the past or the contributions by Gibraltar to Britain's international interest, which have been referred to this afternoon and in so many past debates. Gibraltar is home to many nationalities. Its 30,000 inhabitants descend from the Maltese, Genoese, Moroccans, Indians and British, among others. In two years time, we should be celebrating that such a diverse place has enjoyed a special relationship with the United Kingdom for 300 years. In the intervening period, Gibraltar and those living there must have the right to self-determination, which includes the right to maintain the status quo, if that is what they want.
I am pleased that there have been reports that the Chief Minister is moving towards joining talks if his two preconditions are met, and I hope that they will be. I wholeheartedly agree with him that once the Gibraltarian people have made up their minds in the promised referendum, that should be an end to it. I seek reassurance from the Minister that that will be the case.
The Spanish daily, El Pais, has recently reported that there is to be an unlimited period of co-sovereignty. That flies in the face of what the Government have said, and of what the Foreign Secretary has been publicly telling the House as recently as 14 January. He said, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) mentioned, that no agreement had been reached with the Spanish Government and that that Government have made no such claims. The dispute is not, as a recent article in The Observer argued, as anachronistic as the Schleswig-Holstein question; it is a straightforward one about a people's right to self-determination.
I hope that the new constitution, which the Gibraltar Government are shortly to discuss, can be a new basis on which Gibraltar may be administered in future. It should be an open-handed deal with no backroom stitch ups, and could result in the status quo. If the result is the status quo, that should be the end of the matter, and no agreed principles, framework or joint declaration
174WH
hammered out by the British and Spanish Governments without Gibraltar's agreement should remain on the table as the joint Anglo-Spanish position.
5.22 pm
Geraldine Smith: In making my brief contribution, I will confine my comments to three key questions that hon. Members need to address.
First, we must consider whether the Government should enter into negotiations with Spain over the sovereignty of Gibraltar at this time. We all know the history and that since the treaty of Utrecht in 1713 Gibraltar has been under British control. It has been under British control for longer than it was under Spanish control. It has already been said that throughout the years, the rock of Gibraltar has been of great strategic importance, and its people have been tremendous allies during two world wars. It has also been said that, at this time, there is no desire from the Gibraltarians for any change to the status quo of sovereignty. In fact, the reverse is true. The fact that sovereignty is again being discussed, coupled with the fear that they could be sold out, has caused great anger to many citizens of Gibraltar.
In recent years, Spain's attitude to Gibraltar has been appalling. Hon. Members will be aware of the anguish and hardship inflicted on Gibraltarians by Franco's action in closing the frontier with Spain. Even after the restoration of democracy in Spain and the re-opening of the frontier in the mid-1970s, there has been a catalogue of social, economic and administrative harassment of Gibraltar by the Spanish authorities. Excessive delays at the frontier crossing, absurd restrictions on issuing telephone numbers and a refusal to recognise Gibraltarians' passports and identity cards are a few examples of the deplorable tactics deployed by Spain in its efforts to disrupt the economic and social well-being of Gibraltar's people.
Despite those obstacles and the fact that it had to regenerate economically following the decline of the naval dockyards, Gibraltar has flourished and its people live in a free, democratic society. The issue of sovereignty built into the Utrecht treaty, the lack of desire for change demonstrated by the people of Gibraltar, a successful economy and the belligerence of the Spanish, all lead one to the view that no change to sovereignty should be agreed, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. I am far from convinced that such reasons exist. Having said that, it is vital that the Government maintain an on-going dialogue with their Spanish counterparts, and attempt to resolve the long-standing issue. Discussions about sovereignty will be an integral part of the process, but I do not accept that such discussions must inevitably lead to a change in sovereignty.
Nevertheless, the Government must make a genuine attempt to heal the running sore that is harming our good relationship with Spain. To allow it to fester is not in the interests of any of the parties involved. It is not in the interests of the European Union or NATO either. Those important institutions have already been adversely affected by the discord between member states, and any escalation of the dispute could seriously undermine their effectiveness. A lack of agreement, co-

175WH
operation and trust is hampering the economic development of Gibraltar and southern Spain. The entrenched lack of trust, and the disinclination of the Spanish and Gibraltar authorities to co-operate lead me to my second point.
If discussions with Spain on the future of Gibraltar are to bear fruit and a lasting settlement is to be achieved, it is vital that Gibraltar is directly represented by its Chief Minister. It is amazing that talks can take place about Gibraltar while the Chief Minister is absent. I realise that he has been invited, but it seems unlikely that he can accept at the moment. If the Chief Minister participated in the talks and had to withdraw, negotiations on sovereignty would have to cease until the issues that prompted his withdrawal were resolved. The watchword of this House on behalf of the people of Gibraltar must be: no negotiation without representation.
We must avoid at all costs a bilateral agreement between the Spanish and British Governments that could be implemented only if it won the support of the people of Gibraltar in a referendum. The people of Gibraltar would overwhelmingly reject any proposal that was drawn up without the participation of the Gibraltar Government. They would then be in an isolated position, at odds with the British and Spanish Governments. If that were to happen, it would be a breach of the obligation that this country has to protect the best interests of the people of Gibraltar.
My final and most important point is about a promise made to the people of Gibraltar that any agreement with Spain that affects their sovereignty will be put to them in a referendum. That promise will be fulfilled only if a rejection vote in the referendum means that the agreement that led to the referendum being held ceases to exist. That is different from the agreement—or joint declaration, as the Minister called it—not being implemented, but remaining intact. I ask the Minister again to provide an assurance on this fundamental issue. If we are saying that the people of Gibraltar will have an open and honest referendum, we cannot then say that if we do not like the result, we will ignore it.
Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend believes that we should respect the right of the people of Gibraltar as expressed in a vote and I agree, but does she agree with me that we should go further than respecting their right to self-determination and allow them to choose between integration and independence?
Geraldine Smith: I agree.
Many dubious comparisons have been made with Northern Ireland. As has already been said, a sizeable minority in Northern Ireland would like to be part of the south of Ireland. Can we imagine the uproar if an agreement were made between the Irish Republic and Britain on the issue of joint sovereignty over Northern Ireland? What if that were put to a referendum in Northern Ireland and rejected by the people, but the Government said that, although they would not implement it, they would leave the joint declaration on the table? The fundamental point is that the Government must respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar and must accept whatever decision is taken in the referendum. Otherwise, it makes nonsense of democracy.
5.31 pm
Mr. Mark Francois: I am conscious of the clock and shall attempt to abide by your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the record, let me tell the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) that I have never visited Gibraltar, but I have been on holiday to Spain.
The Minister introduced Northern Ireland into the debate. He deliberately drew an analogy, which we must nail stone dead this afternoon. Yet another important difference between Northern Ireland and Gibraltar is that a groundswell of support arose within both traditions for talks to take place in Northern Ireland. Both sides wanted talks with the hope of reaching a compromise agreement.
Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Francois: No. As one sows, so shall one reap. No such groundswell of support for negotiations exists in Gibraltar. Absolutely none. If there were, the Minister would be writing articles in The Spectator about how much support was in evidence in Gibraltar.
Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Francois: No, because of the time. The position is not at all analogous and it is disingenuous of the Minister to bring Northern Ireland into the debate.
Mr. Rosindell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Francois: Very briefly. [Interruption.]
Mr. Rosindell: I have only a brief comment to make. Is my hon. Friend aware that as our debate continues, "Panorama" in Gibraltar is reporting that hundreds of people are on the streets at this very moment, disgusted at their betrayal by the Labour Government?
Mr. Francois: I thank my hon. Friend for that important information.
What is the Minister attempting to achieve? He is trying to negotiate a joint declaration between the British and Spanish Governments and to place that declaration on the record and before the public in order to give the Spanish a diplomatic foothold on the Rock. In reply to my earlier intervention, the Minister said that any change in the status of Gibraltar might require the agreement of other members of the European Union, perhaps at an intergovernmental conference. That takes us to the heart of the matter.
Why are the Government doing this? Not because the people of Gibraltar want it, but because the Government have a higher ambition in the European Union and they want Spanish votes. I believe that a deal has already been reached between the British and Spanish Governments—in principle at least—and the payoff is expected to come at some future EU conference, or perhaps even an intergovernmental conference. The people of Gibraltar are being sold out by a Labour Government in return for Spanish votes at a future European summit. That is at the heart of this debate and I wish that the Minister would admit it.
5.34 pm
Peter Hain: I will not admit it because it is simply not true. It is another of the myths that is being propagated and the scaremongering that I deprecate. It is making the people of Gibraltar suspect all sorts of plots when what we are doing, and this follows a consistent theme throughout my political life, is seeking to protect the democratic and human rights of people on the Rock, as we do for people in the rest of Britain.
The Sunday Telegraph has been quoted in the debate, as has El Pais. I have not seen either of the articles. I invite hon. Members to read carefully what has been said consistently in the House and what I have said this afternoon. They should be reading Hansard rather than reports in newspapers by unnamed officials speculating about this and that. I am really worried that hon. Members are talking past each other. I said something rather important this afternoon. If there has not been clarification before, there could be a second stage to the negotiations after the discussions with Spain under the Brussels process have concluded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) referred to a note of an exchange between the Foreign Secretaries of Britain and Spain. I was mystified by that. I can only assume that he is referring to a joint press communiqué that my Parliamentary Private Secretary has passed to me, issued by the Spanish Foreign Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. That communiqué in answer to a question from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was placed in the Library. My hon. Friend should not create mischief by suggesting that something underhand has been done when we have placed the communiqué in the Library. Such irresponsible scaremongering does not add to the quality of the debate.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) asked me a series of questions. No, the Matutes proposals do not lie on the table. We specifically set them aside at the beginning of the Brussels process. They suggested a 50 year reopening clause on any agreement, which is a slippery slope to the Spanish historic claim to full sovereignty over Gibraltar. We will not accept anything like that. He asked me, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley, whether I was in favour of integration. No, I am not. I doubt, although it is a matter for them, whether the people of Gibraltar would be in favour of integration. Integration would mean a similar situation to that enjoyed by 30,000 citizens of the United Kingdom in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. If he wants the status of a small town, and the parish council powers that come with that, fine, but I do not think that that is what he really means.
Mr. Francois: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Standing Committee on which I sit is about to divide. I shall dash off to vote and then return. I mean no disrespect to the Minister by leaving.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that that was a point of order.
Peter Hain: I accept the hon. Gentleman's apology.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk asked me whether the joint declaration would remain on the table even if it was rejected in a referendum. It could not be
178WH
implemented and so to that extent it would not remain on the table. However, we will have produced joint proposals to put to the people of Gibraltar and their Government. Whether they go to a referendum depends on whether the Gibraltar Government want to negotiate on those proposals. We cannot air-brush them away. We will have published them and they will be there.
Mr. Spring: Will the Minister give way?
Peter Hain: I have to reply to a number of other points and if it is possible I will take the intervention later.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Chief Minister would be given a distinct voice in a single corporate delegation—
Mr. Spring: Composite.
Peter Hain: —composite delegation. The answer is yes, he would. I wrote to the Chief Minister today to explain that, and it was part of our constructive discussions last Friday. We invited the Chief Minister to all Brussels process meetings and would welcome his participation and input. We feel that he could take part under the two flags, three voices formula. He would be a full member of the composite British delegation, which would comprise distinct British and Government of Gibraltar parts led by the Foreign Secretary. The Chief Minister would have a full and separate voice on the British side of the table, with no restriction on the issues on which he could speak. The Spanish would address the Chief Minister and respond to him directly. Having outlined that formula to the Chief Minister as the basis for the Government of Gibraltar's participation several times, most recently when we met him on 25 January, I hope that he will think again. The offer has been there right from the beginning, and I do not think that empty-chairing the negotiations properly protects the interests of Gibraltar.
Andrew Mackinlay: Can the Minister—
Peter Hain: I will not give way. I must reply to the debate, and then I will come back to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) raised several points and said that Gibraltar had been a British strategic interest for many years. That is true; it remains one, and we have no intention of relinquishing it under any proposal that may emerge from the Brussels process.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) said that the current situation was untenable. I agree with him entirely, which is why we have embarked on the discussions, and I welcome his argument that the Chief Minister should join the discussions. However, he said that he would reject a rigged referendum under duress, which was an allegation made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) as well. I would reject such a referendum, as would Her Majesty's Government. Why are critics of the Government's policy suddenly afraid of a referendum? We have always promised one, and will continue to do so if that is what the Government of Gibraltar want. The people will be able to vote freely and secretly, and the British Government will, of course, abide by the decision.

179WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who has taken a close and principled interest in the matter over a long time, said that he thought that the process would all end in tears with Spain. I just say to him, "Watch this space". The discussions are taking place in good faith between London and Madrid—we wish that the Government of Gibraltar were there too—and there is a realistic attitude. I predict that it will not end in tears but that things will move forward. We do not want, in his words, to dragoon the people of Gibraltar into anything, and they will have a free and fair vote.
My hon. Friend asked why we were talking about self-government, because Gibraltarians have got self-government. However, the Government of Gibraltar do not think that they have sufficient self-government, and the Chief Minister has repeatedly said to me that he wants more. That is why a Select Committee of the Gibraltar legislature is due to report shortly on its own ideas for constitutional reform, and I look forward to the report. I understand from the Chief Minister and others that it has been discussing more self-government,
180WH
and any agreement from the current process could, and probably will, bring greater self-government for Gibraltar. That is a big prize.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest said that the people of Gibraltar are British. Yes, they are and will remain so as far as this Government are concerned, and she will be pleased if we reach an agreement with Spain on a joint declaration to reinforce that point.
Mr. Spring: Will the Minister give way?
Peter Hain: I will in a moment.
The hon. Lady said that the previous Conservative Government had never discussed the issue of sovereignty. I invite her to talk to Lord Garel-Jones, the Minister involved at the time, who will confirm that similar discussions took place. We are not giving in to bullying but trying to produce a situation in which Gibraltar does not have to suffer any bullying from Spain or anyone else.
In conclusion, we are discussing in good faith a better future for the people of Gibraltar, and we will try to achieve it.
It being fifteen minutes to Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Ashford International Station
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received on the closure of Ashford International Station on the weekend of the France v. England rugby match in Paris; and if he will make a statement. [26888]

  Mr. Spellar
  My understanding is that the possible closure of Ashford over this weekend has yet to be confirmed, and that, currently, the station is scheduled to be open on Saturday 2 March, although possibly closed on the Friday and Sunday. These timings are provisional and therefore subject to change.

  Although occasional weekend closures are an inevitable consequence of the essential work for the channel tunnel rail link (CTLR) currently being undertaken at and around Ashford, the timing of this particular closure, if confirmed, is particularly unfortunate. I therefore propose to raise the matter with the company building the link, Union Railways.

  The CTLR project itself remains on time and on budget and when section 1 opens in 2003 the people of Kent will of course benefit from improved international rail services on a purpose-built high-speed line that will free up capacity on existing track.

  Wind Power
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to simplify the process by which a wind turbine deployer may achieve planning consent in a commercially viable time-frame. [29284]

  Ms Keeble
  We already promote a positive approach to planning for all types of renewable energy projects. We have initiated the preparation of regional renewable energy assessments to encourage a more strategic approach to planning for renewable energy at regional and local levels, which will help to facilitate planning permission for individual proposals.

  Our Planning Green Paper published on 12 December 2001 includes proposals to deliver faster and more responsive planning decisions across the board. One element of this approach is to encourage developers to discuss proposals with local people and local planning authorities before applications for planning permission are submitted. I strongly commend this to those seeking permission for wind turbines and other renewable energy projects.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) his Department, (ii) his agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which he has had responsibility in each of the last four years. [30072]

  Dr. Whitehead
  This information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Sustainable Development
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how the proposals in the Planning Green Paper will deliver sustainable development; and if he will make a statement. [29897]

  Ms Keeble
  The consultation document "Planning: delivering a fundamental change" states in paragraph 1.2"we need good planning to deliver development that is sustainable and which creates better places in which people can live and work".
  The Green Paper proposes to create a better, faster and fairer planning system with sustainability at its heart.

  Housing (Birmingham)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the average change in annual revenue available for financing investment in Birmingham's housing revenue account as a result `of the Government's rent restructuring proposals, based on(a) the continuation of the current subsidy system and (b) the abolition of the council tenant's tax. [30353]

  Ms Keeble
  Local authorities are responsible for setting their own rents and budgets—including the resources to be devoted to investment—based on local priorities and other factors. There is no council tenant's tax.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answers of 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 573W, on housing (Birmingham), what his definition of debt financing charges is. [30389]

  Ms Keeble
  The figures I provided in my previous answer related to the amount the Department made available to Birmingham in housing revenue account subsidy towards the administration costs of managing its debt finance. We do not have figures for the cost to Birmingham city council of servicing their housing attributable debt.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he has collated on housing management costs per dwelling for(a) all local authority housing, (b) all RSL housing, (c) all metropolitan authority housing, (d) Birmingham city council housing and (e) RSL housing in Birmingham. [30391]

  Ms Keeble
  On the basis of the definition used for the purposes of best value and Audit Commission Performance Indicators for 2000–01, the average annual management cost per dwelling for all local authorities in England was £654. The average for all metropolitan
  443W
  authority housing was £496 and the average for Birmingham city council housing was £634. The Housing Corporation produces figures for the RSL sector. The average annual management cost per dwelling for the largest 400 English RSLs in 2000–01 was £536. No figures are available for all RSL housing in Birmingham.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the change in the annual cost to(a) Birmingham city council's non-HRA revenue budget and (b) the Exchequer of financing housing benefit for Birmingham tenants if transfer of the local authority housing stock to a registered social landlord goes ahead. [30350]

  Ms Keeble
  The estimated housing benefit cost over three years to be contributed from Birmingham city council's general fund is £17.14 million.

  The estimated Exchequer contribution to housing benefit cost for Birmingham tenants if transfer of the local authority housing stock to registered social landlord goes ahead is £63.63 million over 30 years.

  Housing (Loans)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he has collated on the interest rates for loans taken out by registered social landlords in each of the last five years. [30352]

  Ms Keeble
  Information of this detail is held by the Housing Corporation only on a commercial in confidence basis.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect on the level of road accidents, broken down by type of(a) accident, (b) injury and (c) victim, of the operation of (i) mandatory and (ii) advisory 20 mph limits. [30326]

  Mr. Jamieson
  TRL research on urban speed management methods published in 1998 (TRL Report 363) found only an average 1 mph drop in speeds and no discernible accident reduction in accidents in 20 mph limits using only signs. Advisory speed limits are not normally approved in England and Wales. However, the more successful 20 mph zones that use self enforcing traffic calming features achieved average speed reductions of around 10 mph which produced a 70 per cent. reduction in child pedestrian accidents and a 48 per cent. reduction in child cyclist accidents.

  Ordnance Survey Trading Fund
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what return(a) he has specified as a target for the Ordnance Survey Trading Fund over the period from 1999 to 2004 and (b) the Ordnance Survey Trading Fund has delivered in each accounting year from 1999 to date. [30298]

  Ms Keeble
  The Ordnance Survey Framework document states in a Treasury minute dated 29 March 1999, that the financial objective desirable of achievement by 444W
  Ordnance Survey Trading Fund for the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2004 shall be to achieve a return averaged over the period as a whole of at least 9 per cent, in the form of a surplus on ordinary activities before interest expressed as a percentage of average capital employed.

  The return on capital employed for each of the years in question is as follows:

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Profit (£ million)

  12.5

  127.3

  Capital employed (£ million)

  45.1

  68.7

  Return on capital employed (per cent.)

  27.6

  39.6

  1 Includes an exceptional payment of £19.25 million received from the Automobile Association (AA)

  Over the two years, 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the average return on capital employed was 33.5 per cent., including the exceptional item in 2000–01.

  Private Finance Initiative Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total external spend by his 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 his Department over this period; and if he will make a statement. [31041]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The specific information about the use of consultants to advise on PFI projects can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I have placed in the Library a list of the consultancy firms employed by DTLR, its executive agencies and sponsored bodies.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for the number of affordable housing units in rural settlements; and if he will make a statement; [31160]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2002, Official Report, columns 975–76W, on affordable housing, what assessment he has made of the reasons for the underlying trend in the number of affordable housing units in rural settlements with a population of 3,000 or less; and if he will list them. [31245]

  Ms Keeble
  The amount of new affordable housing built in recent years has declined because of reductions suffered by the Housing Corporation's capital programme in the mid-1990s, and a rapid increase in scheme costs.

  In the 2000 Spending Review we provided significant additional resources for housing: the Housing Corporation's approved development programme will almost double to over £1.2 billion by 2003–04; and we have doubled the Corporation's programme for affordable

  445W
  housing in small rural settlements (with less than 3,000 people) from 800 in 2000–01 to 1,600 homes a year by 2003–04, with 1,100 homes in 2001–02.

  As announced in the Rural White Paper, we expect 9,000 affordable homes to be delivered annually in rural districts by 2003–04 through Housing Corporation and local authority funding and by judicious use of planning powers.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2002,Official Report, column 975–76W, on affordable housing, if he will list the number of affordable housing units in rural settlements by region in each year since 1990. [31346]

  Ms Keeble
  I will write to the hon. Member with a regional breakdown for England of the number of affordable housing units in rural settlements (with a population of 3,000 or less) funded by the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme and through local authority social housing grant since 1991–92.

  Information for 1990–91 is not available, and information about the number of affordable housing units completed through the planning system without public subsidy is not held centrally.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many affordable housing units were provided by local authorities through local authority funding in rural settlements in each year since 1990. [31159]

  Ms Keeble
  I will send the hon. Member a table showing affordable housing units in rural settlements in England with a population of 3,000 or less funded by local authorities through local authority social housing grant since 1991–92.

  Information for 1990–91 is not available.

  Safety Bill
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects his proposed safety Bill to be presented to the House. [31235]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 19 October 2001,Official Report, column 1364W.

  Railway Safety
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) warning letters and (b) enforcement notices have been given by the Health and Safety Executive to (i) Railtrack and (ii) train operating companies for each year since 1995–96; and if he will provide details of each such letter or notice. [31234]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information on the number of warning letters could be produced only at disproportionate cost.
  446W
  The number of enforcement notices (prohibition and improvement) issued on the railway industry by HSE are:

  Railtrack

  TOCs

  1995–96

  17

  7

  1996–97

  10

  11

  1997–98

  7

  22

  1998–99

  7

  14

  1999–2000

  18

  28

  2000–01

  25

  26

  2001–021

  40

  34

  1 Up to 31 January 2002

  Details of enforcement notices could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list the prosecutions of train operating companies by the Health and Safety Executive for failure to meet targets for reducing the incidents of signals passed at danger in each year since 1995–96; [31197]

  (2) if he will list the prosecutions of Railtrack by the Health and Safety Executive for failure to meet targets for improvements to signals to reduce incidents of signals passed at danger in each year since 1995–96. [31198]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been no such prosecutions for failure to meet such targets.

  Organ Donation
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what action he is taking to encourage councils to include organ donor registration forms in their electoral registration form; [31350]

  (2) how many councils include organ donor registration forms in their electoral registration form. [31351]

  Dr. Whitehead
  While it is the responsibility of each electoral registration officer (ERO) to decide what additional literature to include when issuing electoral registration forms, we asked the Association of Electoral Administrators, prior to the canvass in October 2000, to encourage EROs to include organ donation literature. Information about how many EROs do this is not collected.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to allow local authorities to make the electoral register available for commercial purposes. [31216]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We intend to publish shortly a paper setting out the Government's intentions for regulations making provision, with effect from the 2002 canvass, about the sale of electoral registers to commercial organisations. Under current legislation, in the light of a recent High Court judgment, electoral registration officers must continue to sell registers, but when selling to commercial organisations must in general exclude the particulars of electors who have objected to their details being included in such cases.

  Associated British Ports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason a civil servant from his Department accompanied Associated British Ports to a meeting with the Tug Company Adstream UK Ltd. on 11 January. [31535]

  Mr. Jamieson
  An official from my Department was visiting the harbour authority on 11 January as part of the Department's monitoring to confirm the assurances which have been given by the harbour authority that the safe operation of the Humber ports will not be affected by the dispute with the Humber pilots. He found that the harbour master was due to attend a meeting with the tug company, tug skippers and crew representatives; and it was agreed by all the parties that his attendance would enable the Department to know first hand of any safety concerns relating to the tug operation.

  Metropolitan Line
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many delays were caused by technical faults of(a) signals and points and (b) trains on the Metropolitan line in each of the last five years. [31370]

  Mr. Jamieson
  For the number of delays caused by signals and points failures on the Metropolitan line in each of the last five years, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) on 18 July 2001,Official Report, column 197W.

  For the number of delays attributed to problems with rolling stock on the Metropolitan line over the same period, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on 21 January 2002, Official Report, column 570W.

  School Crossing Patrols
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures he is undertaking to help local authorities recruit school crossing patrols; and if he will make a statement. [31368]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is grant-aiding the update of the guidelines for local authorities on the management and operation of the school crossing patrols that was produced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Local Authority Road Safety Officers' Association. I hope this will address any general problems associated with the recruitment and retention of people to provide this valued service.

  School Run
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills concerning the effect on traffic congestion of private car transport of pupils to and from school; and if he will make a statement. [31494]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My officials are in regular contact with officials from DfES in the context of the School Travel Advisory Group. The group was set up by the then 448W
  Transport, Education and Health Ministers in December 1998 to advise on ways to reduce car use and improve safety for children on the journey to school. We have published guides and introduced a new programme of advice and support to assist local authorities and schools in promoting more sustainable school travel.

  Road Safety (Commercial Drivers)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with operators of commercial fleets and other bodies on the level of road crashes involving their vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [31484]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department meets and corresponds with representatives of operators of commercial fleets and others on a regular basis on a wide range of issues. The Work-related Road Safety Task Group consulted the industry and its representatives last year on at-work road safety issues. The task group's report was published on 22 November 2001 and the Government are now considering the recommendations.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent studies he has commissioned to establish the number of road crashes involving company driven vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [31482]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Work-related Road Safety Task Group considered the nature and scale of at-work road traffic incidents. The group commissioned research by the Business Strategy Group and their report, published on 22 November 2001, summarises the findings of that and other related research projects. The report may be viewed on the Health and Safety Executive's website at www.house.gov.uk/road/content.traffic1/pdf. Details of the research are set out in Annexe 3.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it a requirement for drivers of company cars and vans to undertake additional driver training; and if he will make a statement. [31493]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government support high quality training for all drivers and are working with the training industry to ensure that those offering the training have the right skills. We have no plans to introduce compulsory training for company car or van drivers.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will apply to drivers of company cars and vans the safety time limits for driving applied to heavy goods vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [31481]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no plans for legislation to restrict the number of driving hours by company car users. Drivers of goods vehicles under 3.5 tonnes operate under the UK domestic drivers' hours legislation as they are specifically exempted from European Union (EU) drivers' hours rules.

  We announced plans in the Transport White Paper to consult on the possible repeal of the UK drivers' hours rules, in favour of the EU rules. Unfortunately these plans had to be put on hold pending the outcome of discussions on the draft EU directive extending working time limits

  449W
  to mobile workers in the road transport industry. While the terms of this directive have now been agreed and are expected to be published in April, there is now a draft European Commission proposal to amend the EU drivers' hours rules themselves on which we have just gone out to consultation.

  Contracts (KPMG)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what contracts his Department has with KPMG; and what the value is of each one. [31318]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There are currently seven contracts the Department has with KPMG, which are listed as follows; the total value is £2,970,759.00.

  (1) The Next Generation Accounting System Project

  (2) London Transport Statutory Audit

  (3) London Transport Grant Audit

  (4) Support for Business Improvement (Highways Agency)

  (5) Assessing the Impact of the Housing Green Paper Rent Policies on Individual Housing Associations

  (6) First Stage Review of English Partnerships

  (7) Guidance on Commercial Conversions and the Re-use of Empty Houses.

  I am unable to provide individual values for each contract, as the information is deemed commercially sensitive.

  Marine Pollution (Shoreline Clean-ups)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how much funding has been awarded by central Government to local authorities to cover the implementation of plans to undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents in each of the last 10 years; [31211]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to introduce a statutory duty on coastal local authorities to (a) plan for and (b) undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents as part of the review of emergency planning legislation; and if he will make a statement; [31207]

  (3) how much has been spent by local authorities in (a) setting up plans to undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents and (b) cleaning up shorelines following marine pollution incidents in each of the last 10 years; [31209]

  (4) what representations he has received concerning the introduction of a statutory duty on coastal local authorities to (a) plan for and (b) undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents; and if he will make a statement; [31212]

  (5) how many coastal local authorities have implemented a voluntary plan for undertaking shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents; and if he will provide a list of those local authorities; [31208]

  (6) how much funding has been requested by local authorities to cover the implementation of plans to undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents in each of the last 10 years. [31210]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department recognises the importance of the role of coastal local authorities in preparing and maintaining contingency plans for 450W
  responding to shoreline pollution following marine pollution incidents, and in carrying out that response. Since the beginning of 1998, my Department has received representations concerning the introduction of a statutory duty on coastal local authorities to plan for or undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents from: Aberdeenshire council, Ceredigion county council, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Devon county council, Dumfries and Galloway council, Dundee city council, Fife council, KIMO (Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon), the Local Government Association, Pembrokeshire county council, Purbeck district council, Shetland Islands council, South Ayrshire council and the Tyne and Wear Emergency Planning Unit. This is a subject which falls within the scope of the Cabinet Office's ongoing review of "The Future of Emergency Planning in England and Wales", and specifically that review's proposal that existing emergency planning legislation be replaced with a new statutory duty for emergency planning, and my Department has made an input to that review. The result of the review is awaited.

  The information requested about coastal local authorities which have implemented contingency plans on a voluntary basis has been placed in the Libraries of the House, in the form of a list compiled by my Department's Maritime and Coastguard Agency, using data collected in January 2001 (and which are being updated presently). Information about the amount of funding which local authorities have requested to cover the implementation of plans to undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents, and the amounts which local authorities have spent on setting up plans to undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents and on cleaning up shorelines following marine pollution incidents, is not held centrally. No specific grants have been made covering the implementation of shoreline clean-up plans following a marine pollution incident. My Department's Maritime and Coastguard Agency does, however, annually provide training courses for local authority officers on oil pollution contingency planning and response, and shorter courses on oil spill response, at no cost to the local authorities involved.

  Aircraft Seats
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce legislation requiring companies advertising airline flights to provide information about the size of the pitch of the aircraft's seats in their advertisements. [31567]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have no plans at present to introduce such legislation.

  The voluntary European Airline Passenger Service Commitment, to which all UK airlines operating long haul scheduled or charter services are signatories, includes a commitment to make information on seat pitch available to passengers on request. The European Airline Passenger Service Commitment will take effect from 14 February 2002.

  To improve the information available to passengers my Department is working with the Civil Aviation Authority and the airlines to ensure a common public understanding of the phrase "seat pitch".

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the instances in which his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2000–01. [32025]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The total number of invoices paid by my department and its agencies in 2000–01, and the numbers paid late, based on the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions structure in place at 31 March 2001, are shown in the table. Listings of individual invoices paid late, and information in respect of non-departmental public bodies, are not held centrally.

  Invoices paid 2000–01

  Number of invoices paid

  Number of invoices paid late

  Percentage paid late

  DETR(C)

  76,241

  1,868

  2.45

  Driving Standards Agency

  31,357

  249

  0.79

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  22,456

  445

  1.98

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  2,604

  43

  1.65

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  36,896

  384

  1.04

  Highways Agency

  100,288

  4,383

  4.37

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  30,863

  132

  0.43

  Planning Inspectorate

  9,349

  350

  3.74

  QEII Conference Centre

  3,208

  7

  0.22

  The Rent Service

  22,701

  835

  3.68

  Total

  335,965

  8,696

  2.59

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what additional security measures are planned by his Department to deter and detect theft and fraud. [31794]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department takes its responsibility to minimise losses due to theft or fraud very seriously. It has a fraud response plan, based on the Treasury model, which it keeps under regular review. It issues periodic reminders to staff about the plan and related matters.

  All incidents are reviewed for lessons about improved control and investigations are initiated whenever appropriate.

  No additional security measures are judged necessary at the present time.

  St. Kevin's Playing Fields, Kirkby
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 28 January 2002,Official Report, column 62W, if new proposals for St. Kevin's Playing Fields in Kirkby which are (a) at variance with the local urban development plan, (b) at variance with the planning inspector's recommendations and (c) materially different in other substantial ways, will be treated as a wholly new application; and if he will make a statement. [32079]

  Ms Keeble
  It is for Knowsley metropolitan borough council as the responsible local planning authority for the area and in this case as applicant to decide whether their proposals for the site have changed to such an extent that a fresh planning application should be made.

  Asylum Centre (Throckmorton)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what planning permissions will need to be granted by which authorities to permit the development of an asylum accommodation centre on Ministry of Defence land at Throckmorton, Worcestershire. [31725]

  Ms Keeble
  Development by the Crown, including Government Departments, does not require planning permission. Development is undertaken under the non-statutory arrangements set out in Part IV of the Memorandum attached to DOE Circular 18/84. The developing Department must serve a Notice of Proposed Development on the local planning authority. If the local planning authority objects to the proposal and the objections cannot be resolved by negotiation, the developing Department must refer the proposals to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for his determination. To enable him to reach a decision the Secretary of State will either ask for written representations or institute a non-statutory public inquiry.

  If a Government Department is proposing to dispose of land in anticipation of development of that land by another, non-Crown body, it may apply for planning permission under section 299 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Development undertaken on Crown land by a private body requires planning permission in the normal way.

  Local Authority Rents
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the level of council house rent rises was in each year since 1991 to 2001 in(a) real and (b) percentage terms, in each local authority in descending order. [30563]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: A table showing the annual change (actual and percentage) in the level of local authority weekly rents for each year from 1991–92 to 2001–02 has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The local authorities are ranked in descending order, with the local authority with the biggest cumulative increase in council rent over the period 1990–91 to 2001–02—Barking and Dagenham—at the top.

  It should be noted that between April 1990 and April 2001 the retail prices index rose by 38.4 per cent. Since only the last two local authorities in this table (Redbridge and Bournemouth) saw an overall rise in rents of less than 38.4 per cent, in all other authorities the "real" rise in council rents over the period 1990–91 to 2001–02 has been positive.

  Note that the only local authorities shown in this table are those that existed both in 1990–91 and in 2001–02 and did not undergo any significant boundary changes during the intervening years.

  Local authorities that existed in 1990–91 but have since transferred their stock to housing associations (registered social landlords) have been omitted.

  Parliamentary Questions (PFI)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many written parliamentary questions regarding private finance initiatives have been tabled since 1 January 2000; and in how many of these information was not provided on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. [31966]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was formed on 8 June 2001. In the period 8 June 2001 to 30 January 2002, my Department responded to 191 parliamentary questions tabled about private finance initiatives and similar public private partnerships. Of these, five responses did not provide information on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the hon. Member for West Chelmsford can expect a reply to the letter he sent on 4 September 2001 from Mr. R. Black of the Chelmsford Area Access Group. [31688]

  Ms Keeble
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 29 January.

  Speeding Signs (Bredhurst)
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when his Department will grant authorisation for the installation of interactive speeding signs in Bredhurst village, near Sittingbourne, Kent. [31693]

  Ms Keeble
  Kent county council as the Highway Authority has responsibility for the main roads, Forge Lane and The Street, that flow through Bredhurst village. KCC took part in a pilot scheme with the Transport Research Laboratory for testing interactive speeding signs and a programme for installation of an extended pilot scheme covering a further 15 signs has been agreed on. Bredhurst is not included in that extension.

  Public Services
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that district authorities have the flexibility to fund and deliver high quality public services to local people which the Government have called for. [31302]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I can confirm that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) on 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 137, we have improved the terms of the minimum grant increase for 2002–03 guaranteed to shire district councils.

  We have done this by introducing an alternative baseline for 2001–02, which, in effect, adjusts only for the transfers of service for which shire districts are responsible. In order to guarantee a minimum 2.3 per cent. increase for shire districts, we will give each district whichever increase is greater: 2.3 per cent. on the original fully adjusted baseline, or 2.3 per cent. on the alternative.
  454W
  Districts will also benefit from the package of measures announced in the Local Government White Paper and designed to enable all councils to deliver improvements in public services. In particular, there are proposals to assist district councils to build their corporate capacity, encouragement for greater county and district collaboration, including in local PSAs, and additional freedoms which will be available to high performing districts in due course. Districts will also benefit from the deregulation proposals, the streamlining of best value and the move to a more proportionate approach to inspection.

  Local Government Finance
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that the new grant formula that will replace SSA will be fairer and simpler and address the needs of all classes of authority. [31303]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government are working closely with local government to develop simpler and fairer grant formulae. We will consider the cases of all classes of authority in taking decisions on the new system.

  Highways Agency
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Highways Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for 2000–01 will be published; and what results it will report. [32979]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency 2000–01 annual report will be published today under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. In the year, the agency met all but one of its eight ministerial targets, missing the final target by only a very narrow margin. The agency also managed its expenditure within its budget, resulting in a very small underspend of 0.6 per cent. A copy of the report will be placed in the House Library.

  Merseyrail
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement about the Merseyrail passenger franchise. [33078]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Merseyrail franchise operates on a network of lines which are almost entirely separate, physically and operationally, from the rest of the national rail network. The current franchise expires in February 2003. Merseytravel (the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive and Passenger Transport Authority) has brought forward proposals to take Merseyrail services outside the franchising process operated by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), leaving the way open for Merseytravel to offer a local concession (in effect, similar to a franchise) for these services. Having discussed the proposals in detail with both the SRA and Merseytravel I have it in mind to support this approach which will provide local control over this unique local network and will help bring much needed improvements for passengers.
  455W
  I accordingly intend, after consultation, to seek the House's approval to an Order under the Railways Act 1993, which will enable the new arrangements to be given effect. In the meantime the SRA will continue to work with Merseytravel on the future of these services.

  Listed Buildings
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers(a) local authorities, (b) English Heritage and (c) other agencies have to require owners of listed buildings to maintain their exterior appearance. [27636]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local authorities and the Secretary of State have powers under section 48 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to require owners of listed buildings to carry out works which are considered to be reasonably necessary for the proper preservation of a listed building. Under section 54 of the Act, local authorities have powers to execute works which appear to be urgently necessary for the preservation of unoccupied listed buildings. The Secretary of State also has powers under section 54 of the Act to authorise English Heritage to carry out such repairs on her behalf. No other agencies have statutory powers concerning listed buildings.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Rural Communities
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to support village shops, pubs and post offices in rural communities. [29547]

  Alun Michael
  Ensuring that people in rural areas have access to essential services such as village shops, pubs and post offices is a key theme of the Government's Rural White Paper strategy. Since we published the White Paper a year ago we have implemented a range of measures and provided extra funding to boost these basic services to rural communities. The details are provided in "England's Rural Future", which I published in December and placed in the Library of the House.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what support is given by the European Commission to rural communities in disadvantaged areas of the UK. [29548]

  Alun Michael
  There are many ways in which help support disadvantaged rural communities. Not but the European Not all of them are European funded, Commission finance the following additional match funding from the Government:The England Rural Development Programme which supports schemes to help and encourage farming, forestry and other rural businesses and communities to adapt to changing circumstances and to create a productive and sustainable rural economy.
  Structural Funds (Objective 1) funding is available in certain areas (Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Merseyside and South
  456W
  Yorkshire) to promote similar measures to the ERDP. However, because these areas are defined by the Commission as being of greater need, the rates of grant are slightly higher.
  Leader+ assists local action groups (which could include farmers, rural villages, rural businesses, local authorities, parish councils and voluntary organisations) in improving the quality of life and economic prosperity in their area through innovative approaches to sustainable rural development.

  A more extensive list of sources of funding—both European and domestic—together with advice for rural businesses and communities can be found in Annexe 1 of the Rural White Paper—"Our Countryside: the future, a fair deal for rural England", a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many live sheep were exported from the UK in the last year for which figures are available before the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [29549]

  Mr. Morley
  According to our computer system used to issue export health certificates, 2,282 breeding sheep, 627,566 fattening sheep and 2,590 slaughter sheep were certified for export from the UK during 2000. The computer system also shows that during the period 1 January to 20 February 2001, seven breeding sheep, 86,900 fattening sheep and 703 slaughter sheep were certified for export from the UK. The figures for sheep exported from Northern Ireland to Ireland are not available.

  These figures may be subject to updating and amendment.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the losses incurred by farmers through the OTMS due to restrictions on movements during the foot and mouth epidemic. [29570]

  Mr. Morley
  The over-30-months scheme (OTMS) delivers some £240 million per annum in payments to beef and dairy farmers. Farmers will have incurred losses arising from additional costs of keeping cattle, delays in sales receipts and, any differences between prices actually received and those which would otherwise have been obtained. However, there are no statistics available to identify the number of cattle that entered the OTMS scheme as a result of movement restrictions and therefore it is not possible to quantify any losses.

  Refrigerators and Freezers (Recycling)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the recycling of refrigerators and freezers. [29550]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are number of options for dealing with waste fridges that are already in place, including re-use, export within Europe, high temperature incineration and storage. Investors are in the process of providing a network of new recycling facilities in the United Kingdom. I understand that the first new facilities are likely to be operational in the spring.
  457W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the development of new recycling plants for refrigerators and freezers. [29559]

  Mr. Meacher
  Investors are in the process of providing a network of new recycling facilities in the United Kingdom. I understand that the first new facilities are likely to be operational in the spring.

  River Severn
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the implications of climate change upon the risk of flooding of the River Severn. [29551]

  Mr. Morley
  In 1995 MAFF sponsored research at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, which considered the impact of climate and land use change on the Severn and Thames river basins. This was used as the basis for subsequent national guidance published in 2000. The Environment Agency is currently carrying out further studies to develop a strategy for the Severn and a Catchment Flood Management Plan, both of which will give further consideration to the potential impacts of climate change.

  Energy Efficiency
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's plans for improving energy efficiency. [29552]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are committed to the importance of energy efficiency as a highly cost-effective way of achieving our climate change goals, for example through the climate change agreements, the energy efficiency commitment, our forthcoming CHP Strategy, and our support of the Carbon Trust and Energy Saving Trust. We recognise that a great unrealised potential still remains and the Department will develop new strategies for realising this in the future.

  Recycling
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to promote Europea-wide measures to encourage recycling. [29553]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government support the Common Position on the Sixth Environmental Action Programme, which calls on the Commission to develop thematic strategies on the sustainable use and management of resources and on waste recycling. This will include measures aimed at ensuring the collection and recycling of priority waste streams.

  Air Quality
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made by her Department on improving air quality since 1997. [29554]

  Mr. Meacher
  Good progress has been made since 1997 in improving urban air quality in the UK, although we still need to do more if we are to achieve all of the 458W
  objectives in our Air Quality Strategy. The improvements are, in large part, the result of the actions we have taken to reduce emissions from road transport and industry.

  EU Enlargement (Poland)
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent contact she has had with her Polish counterparts regarding the agricultural chapter of Poland's EU enlargement application. [29555]

  Margaret Beckett
  I visited Poland on 13 and 14 January and had one-to-one meetings with the Agriculture Minister and the Environment Minister. I encouraged Poland to play an active and constructive part in preparing itself for EU membership, congratulated the Government on reaching a conclusion on the environment chapter and stressed the importance of maintaining the implementation and enforcement programme.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to encourage the development of new sources of CHP. [29556]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department is developing, in close collaboration with DTI and other Departments, a draft CHP strategy, which will set out the measures needed to achieve the CHP target of at least 10,000 mega watts of Good Quality CHP by 2010. We aim to issue the Strategy for consultation shortly.

  Rural Pubs
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to support rural pubs. [29557]

  Alun Michael
  Public houses can act as important community assets in rural areas, sometimes offering a range of products and essential services to the local community. Since we published the Rural White Paper a year ago we have implemented a range of measures and provided extra funding to support rural pubs and other village services. Through the Countryside Agency we encourage mutual support between various services in rural areas—including post offices, village halls, local shops and pubs—to help improve their chances of remaining viable.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she proposes to take to reduce the length of journeys of livestock to slaughter. [29558]

  Mr. Morley
  This is a matter that will be considered when the European Commission produces its proposals for changes to the present EU rules on the protection of animals during transport.

  Organic Food
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on Government policy towards the production of organic food for children. [29560]
  459W
  Mr. Morley
  We wish to secure the success of organic farming and will be looking at all aspects of the organic food market in the organics action plan which I have announced.

  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the proportion of organically produced food consumed in(a) the UK and (b) other EU countries which is imported; and if she will make a statement. [29573]

  Mr. Morley
  UK producers' share of the organic market varies widely between different products but it is estimated that overall imports account for about 70 to 80 per cent. of the value of organic food sold in the UK. We do not have information on the position in other EU countries.

  The relatively low overall share of the organic market supplied by UK producers is one of the issues to be addressed in the action plan for organic farming announced at the end of last year.

  Albert Owen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will outline the subsidies available to encourage farmers to become organic farmers; and what subsidies are available in other EU member states. [29349]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the England Rural Development Programme, support is granted over five years at varying amounts depending on the type of land for conversion to organic farming. Total payments over five years range from £50 to £450 per hectare. In addition, farmers are offered three lump sum payments totally £600 towards the cost of training.

  The Organic Conversion Information Service provides free on-farm advice to prospective organic farmers to assist them to evaluate suitability of their farms for organic production methods.

  Information about support in other member states of the Community is available at www.organic-europe.net

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what(a) regional and (b) local strategies her Department is pursuing to inform consumers about the availability of organic produce; and if she will make a statement; [31074]

  (2) what she is doing to promote the use of organic food produce among other Government Departments; and if she will make a statement. [31073]

  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 stakeholders in the light of the recommendations of the Policy Commission, will address all aspects of the organic food market.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures will be taken this year to consult local communities over the locations of farm scale evaluations of GM crops. [29561]
  460W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Department will announce the proposed sites for the spring 2002 farm scale evaluations six weeks before the first seeds will be sown, to allow people more time to find out about the FSEs in their area. Advice and information will be provided to all relevant councils. Farmers participating in the evaluations have been encouraged to discuss their plans with their neighbours.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the industrial action in her Department. [29562]

  Mr. Morley
  The current industrial action by staff in the Department who are members of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) began on 20 August 2001. Since that date 16,201 working days have been lost due to strike action.

  A revised pay offer was made on 10 January 2002 and the PCS suspended all industrial action on 11 January. Negotiations are continuing with a view to an early settlement.

  New Electricity Trading Arrangements
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received on the operations of NETA in relation to(a) CHP and (b) renewables. [29563]

  Mr. Meacher
  NETA is a matter for Ofgem and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I have met the CHP industry, including the Combined Heat and Power Association on a number of occasions, and at these meetings have heard first hand the effect NETA is having on CHP generators. I have not received representations on the operation of NETA in relation to renewables.

  Parrett Catchment Project
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the Parrett Catchment Project. [29564]

  Mr. Morley
  I welcome the holistic view taken in this study which has involved creation of an effective local partnership and identified a number of options for future flood management. DEFRA stands ready to help in any way we can within the terms and conditions of the relevant support schemes. Funding has been allocated to the Environment Agency for the development of a Catchment Flood Management Plan (one of five national pilot plans) to determine the most effective approaches to flood risk management for this complex catchment.

  Rural Post Offices
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the state of sub-post offices in rural areas; and if she will make a statement. [29565]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency has investigated the provision of post offices in its triennial surveys of service provision in rural areas. The agency's
  461W
  Rural Services Survey 2000 reported a continued decline in post offices. 93.5 per cent. of rural households live within 2 km (1.25 miles) of a post office, between 1997 and 2000 546 rural post offices closed. A range of initiatives have been introduced by Post Office Ltd. to prevent avoidable closures in rural areas, while initiatives from the Countryside Agency include encouraging mutual support between post office and other services to help improve their chances of remaining viable.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role her Department is playing in the review of the landfill tax credit scheme; and what her objectives are for the review. [29567]

  Mr. Meacher
  In the pre-Budget report the Government stated that they were attracted to replacing all or part of the LTCS with a public spending programme to direct resources towards Government priorities on sustainable waste management. The Government are soon to consult on the future of the scheme and the Department is one of those helping to develop that consultation paper.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on what assessments have been conducted of the potential(a) environmental, (b) economic and (c) social impacts of the manufacture of MOX fuel at Sellafield. [29568]

  Margaret Beckett
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I announced on 3 October 2001 that we had decided that the manufacture of MOX fuel is "justified" under the terms of the Euratom basic safety standards directive. The decision document which we issued on that day dealt with these and other relevant issues, and referred to earlier work in particular that undertaken by the Environment Agency, PA Consulting and A. D. Little.

  A copy of the decision document is in the Library of the House.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets she has set for carbon dioxide reduction in the next five years. [29569]

  Mr. Meacher
  No targets have been set for carbon dioxide reduction over the next five years. Under the Kyoto Protocol, the UK has a target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12. The Government have an additional domestic goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. The UK's climate change programme, published in November 2000, sets out a range of policies and measures that we estimate could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 23 per cent. by 2010. The programme will be monitored and evaluated at regular intervals, including a formal review in 2004–05.

  English Canal System
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will next meet the board of British Waterways to discuss the extension of the English canal system; and if she will make a statement. [29571]

  Mr. Morley
  I have no plans at present to visit the board of British Waterways to discuss the extension of the canal system, but my noble Friend Lord Whitty has regular meetings with British Waterways. We are aware of a number of proposals in the pipeline and look forward to discussing them with British Waterways at the appropriate time.

  Waste Management Strategy
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress towards meeting the targets of the Government's Waste Management Strategy (2000) and progress since the waste summit. [29572]

  Mr. Meacher
  Since launching the national waste strategy in May 2000, the Government have set demanding statutory targets for the recycling and composting of household waste for each local authority, increased the landfill tax and consulted on a system of tradable landfill permits in order to achieve the diversion from landfill required. It has also set up the Waste and Resources Action Programme to help create stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products, with funding from the Government and the devolved Administrations of around £40 million over three years.

  Following the waste summit held on 21 November, which considered what more needs to be done to ensure effective delivery of the strategy, the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) have begun their study to review Waste Strategy 2000. The study is assessing what extra instruments, changes to targets or regulations, or additional funding may be required to ensure that the strategy is delivered effectively and that we are able to develop more sustainable waste management.

  The PIU will be consulting with key stakeholders through the study. Further details about the study are available on the PIU website at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation.

  Electronic Livestock Markets
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessments she has made of the effect on animal welfare and transport costs of the use of electronic livestock markets during the foot and mouth epidemic. [29574]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no information on animals traded as a results of electronic livestock markets but the welfare of such animals and the related transport costs would be the responsibility of the parties involved. Electronic markets do have the potential to reduce animal movements with the benefits of welfare and cost.

  Farm Incomes
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on farm incomes. [33079]
  463W
  Mr. Morley
  Revised estimates of farm income, output and productivity of agriculture during 2001 were published on 31 January. These confirm the increase in farm incomes forecast last November and indicate a modest rise of 13 per cent. (11 per cent. in real terms).

  This increase is due to improved prices leading to higher values of output for milk, potatoes and horticulture outweighing lower values of output for cereals and livestock. Incomes are forecast to show a further rise in 2002 as the volume of cereal production returns to more normal levels and the industry starts to recover from the effects of FMD.

  Details have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Bovine TB
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what additional control measures have been introduced to control the possible spread of bovine TB after the foot and mouth disease outbreak. [33076]

  Mr. Morley
  I am announcing today the introduction of TB movement restrictions on certain herds with overdue TB tests. The herds affected are those in annual test frequency parishes that have missed the six and 12 month tests carried out after the lifting of movement restrictions put in place after an earlier TB incident. A veterinary risk assessment has shown that these have been historically more at risk of being infected with TB than herds with other types of TB test. The measure is expected to affect up to 1,250 herds mainly in the south and west of England.

  In addition we are introducing additional checks on herds that have been reformed after FMD. These herds will be TB tested at 12 and 24 months after the normal TB check test at three months after restocking.

  Registration Fees (Merchants and Saddlers)
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the fees to be paid by merchants and saddlers for registration in 2002–03 with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain under the Medicines (Exemptions for Merchants in Veterinary Drugs) Order 1998 have yet been determined. [33077]

  Mr. Morley
  Yes. With the consent of the Treasury, the schedule of fees for registration, retention and restoration have been determined. This is given in the table as follows:

  Fees

  £

  Application in respect of each premises

  Previous

  New

  Agricultural merchants

  1. For registration under Article 5

  224

  224

  2. For retention of registration under Article 5

  133

  140

  3. For restoration of registration under Article 5

  190

  190

  Saddlers

  1. For registration under Article 5

  127

  127

  2. For retention of registration under Article 5

  78

  76

  3. For restoration of registration under Article 5

  107

  107

  Rural Enterprise Scheme
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the annual administration costs of the Rural Enterprise Scheme are. [30647]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES) is one of the new grant schemes in the England Rural Development Programme which was launched in October 2000. It is delivered on a regional basis by DEFRA's Rural Development Service (RDS). Expenditure on the development and administration of the scheme in 2001–02 was forecast to be around £2 million. The final outturn figure is likely to be lower because a significant number of RDS staff were diverted temporarily on to foot and mouth disease work.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many bids have been received by the Rural Enterprise Scheme since it began; what(a) the aggregate value of bids, (b) the number of successful bids and (c) their aggregate value was; and if she will make a statement. [30648]

  Margaret Beckett
  Between October 2000, when the Rural Enterprise Scheme was launched, and the end of December 2001, 867 applications were received. The aggregate value of applications (ie grant sought) is some £54 million. Of the total number of applications received, 207 applications have been successful, with an aggregate value of £5.6 million in grant. A further 346 applications are currently being processed.

  Zoos
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 25 January 2002,Official Report, column 1171W, on zoos, how many zoos failed to meet required standards in (a) health and safety and (b) animal welfare requirements in each year since 1990 for which figures are available. [31967]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is not held centrally. The administration of both the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 falls to local authorities, and there is no requirement for them to report this information to central Government.

  Environmental Appraisal
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many officials from her Department have attended the environmental appraisal and integration into policy training course run by the civil service college; [28993]

  (2) when the last occasion was on which she requested an environmental appraisal before making a policy decision; [28990]

  (3) how many environmental appraisals have been published by her Department since 1 January 2001; and if she will list the last four; [28989]

  (4) what plans her Department has to appraise the environmental implications of its Spending Review submission to the Treasury; [28992]
  465W
  (5) what procedures her Department has to ensure environmental appraisals are undertaken prior to (a) administrative and (b) policy decisions being made. [28991]

  Margaret Beckett
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment indicated in his answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 610W, my Department has published two free-standing environmental appraisals since its creation in June 2001. These are: an economic analysis to inform the review of the Air Quality Strategy Objectives for particles, September 2001, and the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, August 2001.

  The need to show any significant costs and benefits to the environment of all major policy proposals is a Cabinet Committee requirement. To this end, my Department is responsible for the cross-Government guidance, "Policy Appraisal and the Environment", which gives advice to Departments on how and when to carry out environmental appraisal. This guidance is incorporated in the Policy Makers' Checklist published by the Cabinet Office to improve policy making within government and I would expect the requirements of environmental appraisal to have been met, as appropriate, by the time major policy proposals are put to me, or other DEFRA Ministers, for decision.

  No officials from my Department attended the one environmental appraisal and integration into policy training course which the college has held since June 2001—although my officials regularly provide advice and speakers to the college for the course.

  All the proposals that will make up the Department's Spending Review submission to the Treasury are being considered against the 15 headline indicators of sustainable development. Those proposals that are likely to have a significant impact in terms of sustainable development are being subjected to an integrated policy appraisal.

  Water Services
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many invoices for the provision of water services have not been paid for over one year; what their total value is; what the same figures were in each of the last four years; and if she will make a statement. [30116]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Office of Water Services have centrally gathered data on debt from water and sewerage companies only in respect of the years since 1998–99, and only for households. The number of households in England and Wales who had debt outstanding for over a year and the total value of that debt was as follows:

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Number of households with debt outstanding for more than one year

  1,308,176

  1,409,497

  1,581,620

  Household debts outstanding for more than one year

  1289

  1326

  1362

  1 £ million

  Note:

  2000–01 prices: excluding debt outstanding for more than 48 months
  466W
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what studies her Department has completed on the impact of cross-subsidy in the water industry; and what future studies are planned; [31510]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact of the ending of the cross-subsidy on the delivery of water services for rural customers; [31508]

  (3) what measures she plans to take to protect (a) rural customers and (b) those on low incomes from the impact of the ending of cross-subsidy in the water industry. [31504]

  Mr. Meacher
  Following my announcement to the House on 30 March 2001,Official Report, column 831W, the Department has been examining in further detail the scope for extending competition in the water industry. This work includes careful consideration of the implications for all customers, including those in rural areas and on low incomes, and the possible effects on existing cross subsidies. DEFRA will be publishing a consultation paper, setting out the issues and proposals later this year.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list the(a) quantities, (b) radioactive components and (c) location of intermediate and high level waste in the UK in the last 12 months; [25887]

  (2) if she will make a statement on her policy on the long-term management of the UK's nuclear waste. [25892]

  Mr. Meacher
  By the end of the century there will be half a million tonnes of radioactive waste. Some of it will be potentially dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. Deciding the best way to manage it is one of the greatest environmental challenges we have ever faced. The Government and the devolved Administrations published the consultation paper "Managing radioactive waste safely" on 12 September. We propose a programme of national debate and research, leading to scientifically sound decisions on the long-term management of radioactive waste which inspire public confidence across the UK. In the meantime radioactive waste is safely stored, and rigorously controlled by regulators including the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency.

  I gave further details of our policy in oral evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs inquiry into radioactive waste management at its hearing on 17 December. The consultation closes on 12 March and we hope that people all over the UK will let us have their views.

  Information on the quantity, radioactive components and location of high, intermediate and low level radioactive waste in the UK is published in the "United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory". A copy of the most recent inventory, for 1998, was placed in the Library of the House and I have sent a copy on CD to the hon. Member. The latest inventory, for 2001, is being completed by Electrowatt-Ekono (UK) under contract to my Department and to UK Nirex Ltd., and will be published later this year. I shall place a copy in the Library.
  467W
  Data have not been collected in such a way as to give the quantities of intermediate and high level waste produced in the last 12 months. However, the 1998 inventory gives the total likely arising of the wastes (when expressed in conditioned form) over the 10-year period 2000–09 as 30,815 and 799 cubic metres respectively. Assuming a uniform rate of arising, then the arisings of high and intermediate level waste in the last 12 months would have been about 3,100 and 80 cubic metres respectively. Intermediate level waste is produced at locations too numerous to list; they are predominantly nuclear licensed sites but also include many hospitals and small users of radioactive sources. High level waste is only produced at Sellafield.

  Parish and Town Councils
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the policy initiatives her Department, or its predecessor Departments have made since 1997 which affect parish and town councils. [27663]

  Alun Michael
  The Government set out a number of policy initiatives to support parish and town councils in the Rural White Paper, published in November 2000. The main measures to help parish and town councils develop a new role and give communities the opportunity to shape their future have now been put in place. These are:the Community Service Grants scheme, providing £15 million (over three years) to help maintain or introduce services which are local priorities;
  the £15 million (over three years) Parish Transport Grants scheme for small scale projects to meet local needs;
  £5 million (over three years) to help up to 1,000 parishes draw up their own town or village plans to set out local needs and aspirations.
  the national training and support strategy for parish and town councils published by the Countryside Agency and the National Association of Local Councils, to which we have allocated £2 million;
  detailed proposals for putting the quality parish and town councils concept into practice, set out in a consultation paper published in November.

  The Department is also responsible for the £32.5 million Leader+ European Community Initiative, which can be expected to benefit the parish and town councils involved in the 24 Local Action Groups approved by the Secretary of State.

  In addition, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions continues to take the lead on a number of policy areas and initiatives inherited from the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which directly affect parish and town councils. These include:
  the creation of over 80 new parishes since 1997;
  the local government White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", published in December which contains a chapter on "the way forward for parishes". This sets out how
  468W
  the Government will work to make the financial arrangements for parishes more responsive to their needs and aspirations—and those who use and pay for the services they provide;
  the inclusion of parish and town councils with annual budgeted income of over £500,000 (in the years 1997–98 to 1999–2000) within the Best Value regime:
  a Statutory Instrument passed to increase the threshold above which a parish or town council is required to prepare income and expenditure accounts from £5,000 to £50,000; and
  parish councils are also included within the new ethical framework—the main elements of which are now in place. This framework includes a code of conduct which all parish councillors must sign up to and a new independent body, the Standards Board, which will investigate breaches of this code.

  Waste Composting
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to regulate emissions of bioaerosols arising from waste composting schemes. [29613]

  Margaret Beckett
  Waste composting activities, including the emissions of bioaerosols from waste composting schemes, are regulated by the controls contained in Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. Waste composting activities must be licensed with the Environment Agency or operate under a registered exemption, and must be carried out in a way which does not harm the environment or human health. Under the 1990 Act, the Environment Agency are required to monitor waste sites, and carry out periodic inspections of waste composting schemes.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the role of waste composting schemes in meeting the Government's target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. [29610]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Government have set out their policies for meeting their greenhouse gas reduction targets in the UK Climate Change Programme, copies of which are available in House Libraries. Waste disposal—principally landfill—is the second largest source of methane in the UK.

  The EU landfill directive requires a progressive reduction in the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill. The Government and the National Assembly have set challenging targets in "Waste Strategy 2000" to recycle or compost at least 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005, rising to 33 per cent. by 2015. These measures—together with energy recovery schemes at landfill sites—are projected to reduce methane emissions from the waste disposal sector to 65 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if proposals for new waste composting schemes will require an environmental impact assessment. [29619]

  Margaret Beckett
  Waste composting schemes are not referred to specifically in the list of projects subject to environmental impact assessment, as set out in Directive 85/337/EEC as amended, but could be subject to EIA as part of a wider project. The position in relation to the EIA regulations would depend on the circumstances in
  469W
  each case and would be considered by local planning authorities where projects were subject to the planning legislation.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what studies have been undertaken by the Environment Agency into the dispersion and dispersion mechanisms of bioaerosols arising from the composting of waste; and if she will make a statement; [29612]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the level of emissions of bioaerosols arising from the composting of waste; [29611]

  (3) if she will list her targets for the composting of waste for (a) 2002 and (b) each of the next five years. [29614]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Government's waste strategy sets national targets to recycle or compost at least 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005, at least 30 per cent. by 2010 and at least 33 per cent. by 2015. Annual composting targets have not been set for 2002 or the following five years, but statutory performance standards for household waste recycling and composting have been set for each local authority under the Best Value process for 2003–04 and 2005–06. The achievement of these will deliver the first of the national targets in 2005.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is towards reducing the level of methane emissions. [29620]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Government's policy for reducing methane emissions are set out in the UK's Climate Change Programme, copies of which are in the House Libraries. A range of policies has been introduced which is leading to reductions in methane emissions. A key policy is the increased collection of landfill gas for use as energy, an important aspect of the Waste Strategy and the EU landfill directive. Emissions are also falling from other sources including the agricultural sector, coal mines and the natural gas distribution network. Methane emissions are currently projected to fall by about 45 per cent. below 1990 levels in 2010.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage reduction target from the 1990 baseline she has set for each of the greenhouse gases. [29615]

  Margaret Beckett
  Under the Kyoto Protocol, the UK has a target to reduce emissions of a basket of six greenhouse gases by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12. The six gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride. The Government have an additional domestic goal to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. Further targets have not been set for the other greenhouse gases. The UK's climate change programme, published in November 2000, sets out a range of policies and measures that we estimate could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 23 per cent. by 2010.

  Transported Food
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the average number of food miles travelled by food consumed in the UK. [29622]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Continuing Survey of Roads Goods Transport recorded that UK registered HGVs transported food, animal feed and drink (totalling 354 million tonnes) a total distance of 4,437 million kilometres within the UK at an average length of haul of 128 kilometres. Such vehicles account for around 95 per cent. of all freight moved by road. This includes the domestic part of any trips that start or end in a foreign country, and excludes food, feed and drink transported by foreign-registered HGVs. In terms of freight movement (ie weight of goods multiplied by distance travelled) this represents 45 billion tonne-kilometres.

  There are no official statistics available on the distance travelled by imported food, feed and drink up to the point of entry into the UK. However an academic study1 carried out in 1996 estimated that UK imports of food products and animal feed involved transportation by sea, air and road of around 83 billion tonne-kilometres.
  1 Cowell, S. And R. Clift, 1996. Farming for the Future: an environmental perspective. Paper presented at the Royal Agricultural Society of the Commonwealth, July 1996.

  Domestic Game Industry
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to support the domestic game industry; and if she will make a statement. [31204]

  Mr. Morley
  The only sizeable farmed game industry in the UK is the deer (venison) industry. In the main, Government help for that industry has come in the form of funding R&D. The Government have funded deer related projects since 1988, the most recent being a three year project, costing £178,000, looking at low input systems for venison production. For the future, R&D in the deer sector is likely to concentrate on sustainability and the comparative environmental cost of farming deer.

  Deer farming has also benefited from grants under the Agriculture Development Scheme, aimed mainly at developing assurance schemes in this sector.

  Water Framework and Nitrates Directives
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the reasons for signing the Water Framework Directive. [31179]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK played a leading role in drafting many aspects of the Water Framework Directive during and after its presidency of the European Union 1998. The directive will help ensure protection and improvement of our inland and coastal waters for the benefit of generations to come, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

  The Directive introduces a common approach to environmental objectives for all groundwaters and surface waters within the Community as well as a common implementation method, based around the principle of river basin management.
  471W
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the differences are between current methodology employed to map nitrate vulnerable zones and that used when nitrate vulnerable zones were designated in 1996. [31177]

  Mr. Meacher
  Identification of discrete area nitrate vulnerable zones as presented under Option 2 of the current consultation paper "How should England implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive?", published on 20 December 2001, has required assessments of the status of several different types of water bodies.

  For surface waters, the primary differences between current and past methodology are that the proposed designations are the result of the application of a more robust statistical methodology used to assess nitrate concentrations, coupled with the use of a more extensive water quality sampling network. Following the European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment in 2000 that we failed to fully implement the nitrates directive, we were required to cover all waters, not just those used for drinking water supplies. The entire Environment Agency GQA monitoring network is now used. Statistical assessments of nitrate concentrations have been based on a minimum of five years of data, compared to a single year of data in the past. For the first time, trend-analysis has also been used to cover the requirement to protect those waters which may be subject to unacceptably high nitrate pollution in the future.

  For groundwaters, the 1996 designations of groundwater NVZs were based on monitoring data taken from Public Water Supply boreholes and delineated by groundwater catchments. Following the ECJ judgment, we were required to ensure that the new methodology identifies all groundwater vulnerable to agriculturally-derived nitrate and not just the catchments (zones of contribution) for Public Supply Wells. This was accomplished by combining a statistical assessment of groundwater data with a groundwater vulnerability model derived from an examination of the risk factors associated with land use, rainfall, soil and geological characteristics. The spatial distribution of nitrate values from the monitoring network was used in conjunction with the vulnerability map to define nitrate vulnerable zones.

  The nitrates directive also requires designation of nitrate vulnerable zones draining into estuarine areas which have been adjudged to be eutrophic and where a significant proportion of nitrogen arises from diffuse agricultural sources. Such areas are identified in England under the proposals for Option 2 for the first time.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the overlap between the water framework and nitrates directives. [31180]

  Mr. Meacher
  Measures required under the nitrates directive are also "basic" measures which must be included in "programmes of measures" under article 11 of the water framework directive. These programmes of measures have to be published in draft by December 2008 as part of proposed comprehensive River Basin Management Plans.
  472W
  Action required under the nitrates directive will also therefore contribute to meeting environmental objectives set by the water framework directive. These objectives are due to be met by 2015.

  DEFRA published a consultation document on 20 December 2001 setting out options for implementing the nitrates directive, in order to comply with a European Court of Justice judgment issued in December 2000. These proposals would apply measures required under the nitrates directive in new areas from 19 December 2002.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason the methodology for mapping groundwaters in relation to proposed nitrate vulnerable zones has been changed from that applied on nitrate vulnerable zones designated in 1996. [31178]

  Mr. Meacher
  Identification and designation of groundwater nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZs) in 1996 was based on monitoring data from Public Water Supply boreholes. Following the European Court of Justice judgment that we have failed to fully implement the nitrates directive, we were required to extend the methodology to cover all groundwaters, not just drinking water supplies. The Environment Agency therefore used in addition to all available private borehole monitoring data and developed a modelling methodology, calibrated to best fit available borehole monitoring data, to identify vulnerable groundwaters. Further details are in Annexe A of the current consultation document "How should England implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive?" (PB6269) published on 20 December 2001.

  Animal Movement Licences
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on livestock farmers who have imminent markets for animals of her Department's changes to the procedure for the issuing of movement orders by trading standards office; for what reasons the change requiring movement orders to be despatched by post was made; and what consultations were made with farmers and representative organisations prior to the change being introduced. [31511]

  Mr. Morley
  Guidance issued by DEFRA to local authority trading standard departments has not changed. It has consistently advised that licences should only be issued in hard copy form with faxed copies only being used in exceptional circumstances.

  Rural Payments
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with HM Treasury on match funding for European Union agri-environment scheme subsidies; what steps she has taken to press for the introduction of modulation of direct compensation payments to farmers as part of the 2003 mid-term review of the common agricultural policy; and if she will make a statement. [31513]

  Alun Michael
  The funding arrangements for the agri-environment schemes under the England Rural Development Programme, including the match funding for European Union funds, were confirmed under the
  473W
  Spending Review 2000. Levels of funding will be considered as part of the Spending Review 2002. Part of the European Union funding is derived from modulation of direct compensation payments.

  Government are currently engaged in informal discussions with like-minded member states on various aspects of the 2003 mid-term review of the Agenda 2000 common agricultural policy reforms. Those discussions include mechanisms for switching funds from the first to the second pillar of the common agricultural policy.

  Cameraria Ohridella
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the spread of Cameraria ohridella in Europe; and if she has assessed the potential impact on the UK. [30955]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) on 25 October 2001,Official Report, column 362W.

  Elvaston Landfill Site
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs further to her answer of 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 398W, on Elvaston landfill site, what actions the agency has taken on the operator's proposed plans; and what steps are being taken to inform residents of progress. [31065]

  Mr. Meacher
  A public meeting was held on 11 December 2001 where the proposals for work on the site were explained. The public had an opportunity to put questions to representatives of the various organisations with an interest in the activities at the site including Biffa, the Environment Agency and the local and county authorities. Newsletters are being sent to the residents and businesses in the area when new information regarding the site is available.

  The Environment Agency continues to review and seek any necessary improvements to the operator's proposed plan for the site. The agency report that progress is being made on the site in working towards reducing leachate levels. 10 pumps are operational on site to remove leachate from the cells. This is either going via sewer, for the less concentrated sources, or via collection by tanker—for treatment at an appropriate facility—for the strong leachate. Improvements on the gas collection system and capping of the cell area which appeared to be causing many of the odour problems is progressing well and according to the operator should be complete by the end of February.

  Eaga Partnership Ltd
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the number of complaints he has received about the operations of Eaga. [28287]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's main programme for tackling fuel poverty in the private sector in England is the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES), now marketed as The Warm Front Team. The scheme is 474W
  administered by two scheme managers, TXU Warm Front Ltd. (eastern, east midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber) and Eaga Partnership Ltd. (the rest of England).

  Over 250,000 householders have been assisted since the launch of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) on 1 June 2000. The number of complaints received by my Department since that date concerning Eaga Partnership's three regions is 330 or 0.1 per cent of work completed. A significant number of the complaints received relate to customer service issues and heating delays.

  Industrial Action (IACS Payments)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the industrial action being carried out by staff employed at her Department's regional offices; what assessment she has made of the impact of delays in IACS and ESA payments on individual farm cashflow; and if she will take measures to ensure that farm claimants receive interest on all payment amounts delayed by industrial action. [29088]

  Mr. Morley
  The RPA expects to be able to pay the vast majority of IACS and ESA claims within the regulatory timeframe. However, because of the processing time that has been lost due to industrial action (which was suspended on 11 January), it is likely that more claims than usual will be carried over into February. Every effort will be made to keep these to the absolute minimum. When she met the British Banking Association in November the Secretary of State sought their understanding for the effect which payment delays would have on the cash flow of their farming customers.

  The extent to which any claimants might be entitled to compensation for delays in their payments will be considered in the light of the circumstances at the time.

  Home Heating
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications for the installation of heating equipment have been made to the Eaga Partnership in each of the last three years; how many have been successful; what the average waiting time was; how many homes have had to wait more than nine months for such works to be undertaken; and if she will make a statement. [24956]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES), now marketed as The Warm Front Team, is administered in three of the four English regions by Eaga Partnership Ltd. (London and south-east; south-west and west midlands and north-west and north-east).

  Heating was made available from the launch of the redesigned scheme on 1 June 2000. The previous scheme, which had run from 1991, provided one main insulation measure only. Hence the information provided in the table relates to the new scheme.

  The package of heating and insulation measures to be installed is not known until a HEES surveyor has visited the client's home and an assessment has been made of the measures already in place.
  475W

  Number

  Applications received

  419,000

  Eligible applications received

  1336,000

  Applications where gas central heating has been recommended

  81,300

  Successful applications for gas central heating

  279,500

  Current average waiting time to install a new gas central heating system (days)

  3180

  Homes that have waited more than 9 months for a new gas central heating system

  6,600

  1 It is not possible to identify the package of the measures to be installed in a client's home until the HEES surveyor has visited the property. This assessment takes into account the measures already installed.

  2 It is not possible to identify why the client decided not to proceed with the HEES surveyor's recommendations.

  3 Days measured from date of call with respect of telephone applications, from date of receipt in case of postal applications or from date of e-mail. There is usually a period of 1–8 weeks between the date of actual installation and the receipt of the invoice from installers.

  Since the launch of the scheme on 1 June 2000 Eaga Partnership's contractors have installed 25,000 new gas-fired central heating systems. The majority of householders who have waited over nine months were those who applied to the scheme when it was first launched.

  The national shortage of gas heating engineers has led to severe delays in some areas in the installation and repair of central heating systems. Over the last 12 months Eaga has increased its heating installer base from 30 to 130 companies. Already this is paying dividends with the number of installations rising to 1,000 in January 2001 compared to 3,500 in December 2001.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many complaints have been reported in her Department under paragraph 11 of the Civil Service Code since 13 May 1999, and how many of them related to special advisers. [25334]

  Mr. Morley
  The procedures for making complaints under the Civil Service Code are set in the Department's staff handbook. Civil servants are encouraged, in the first instance, to raise complaints made under paragraph 11 of the Civil Service Code with their line manager. If for any reason this is not felt to be possible, perhaps because the line manager is part of the complaint, individuals may take their complaint to a nominated official (or officials). It is not possible to provide a comprehensive figure for the number of complaints made within this Department under paragraph 11 of the code as there is no requirement for managers to report to the centre details of complaints made under the Civil Service Code which are resolved 476W
  within the management line. However, no such complaints have been reported to the centre of the Department during the period in question.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire of 8 November concerning the actions of the Rural Payments Agency relating to a transfer of quota units. [30039]

  Mr. Morley
  A response to the hon. Member's letter of 8 November was sent on 9 January 2002.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many waste incineration plants there were in the Buckingham constituency in each of the last five years; [30051]

  (2) how many landfill sites there were in the Buckingham constituency in each of the last five years. [30063]

  Mr. Meacher
  The information is as follows:

  Landfill Sites

  The following totals are for open and operational landfill sites in the Buckingham constituency.

  Number

  1997

  6

  1998

  6

  1999

  16

  2000

  5

  2001

  5

  1 Five from May 1999 onwards

  Waste Incineration

  There were no waste incineration plants in the Buckingham constituency in each of the last five years.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Education
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent negotiations have taken place involving the World bank to increase the amount of aid going on education to help developing countries reach their "Education for All" goals; and if she will make a statement. [31145]

  Clare Short
  At its spring meeting in April the World bank will submit a paper on achieving the millennium development goal of universal primary education by 2015. This will analyse progress to date since the Dakar Forum and lessons learned, examine the costs of meeting this goal and make recommendations for obtaining the additional financing required. We are consulting the bank about the preparation of this paper.

  The World bank has a critical role in supporting countries as they seek to give priority to education, and primary education in particular, within the overall context of their poverty reduction strategies. We have not yet seen increased bank funding in support of "Education for All" since Dakar. We hope that at the spring meeting, bank governors will deliver a strong message in support of greater bank effort in education. We believe the bank, together with other international development banks and development agencies, should increase the resources committed to helping reforming government deliver universal primary education.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action is being taken to encourage the provision of education in developing countries, and if she will make a statement. [31352]

  Clare Short
  The Government give priority to helping poor countries develop sustainable education systems to deliver high-quality primary education to all their children. DFID's education strategy paper, "The challenge of universal primary education", sets out our overall approach and three-fold strategy for delivering this goal. Our recent paper "Children out of School" identifies the different circumstances of children who are not in school and proposes an eight-point plan of international action for accelerating progress towards the target of universal primary education for all by 2015. Copies of both papers are available in the Library of the House.

  International Development Foundation
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding her Department has provided to the International Development Foundation in the past five years; and how many times her Department has worked with the International Development Foundation in this period. [30401]

  Clare Short
  There are no records of DFID having either worked with or provided any support to the London-based International Development Foundation.

  Child Slavery
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had on providing funding for refugees for those fleeing from child slavery; and if she will make a statement. [31460]

  Clare Short
  Children may be at risk from many forms of forced labour. Protection and rehabilitation in their former or new communities needs to be adapted to their particular circumstances, whether they are former bonded labourers, child soldiers or victims of trafficking.

  Many programmes supported by my Department to end exploitative child labour and improve livelihood opportunities and access to education, health, justice and protection provide assistance to such children. We also support specifically targeted programmes such as UNICEF's work on the rehabilitation of child soldiers and other children affected by conflict.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received about child slavery(a) in general and (b) in Gabon, Togo and Benin; and if she will make a statement. [31459]

  Clare Short
  Concern has been expressed about child trafficking and slavery in a number of regions, including Gabon, Togo and Benin and other parts of West Africa. The Government are strongly committed to the elimination of child slavery and all forms of abusive or exploitative child labour. We are supporting the efforts of governments, working with our European partners and international bodies such as UNICEF and the International Labour Organisation, and voluntary agencies such as Anti-Slavery International, to end these practices, both in domestic and export industries.

  Children (Sexual Exploitation)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid is being given to combat sexual exploitation of children overseas; and if she will make a statement. [31146]

  Clare Short
  Combating sexual exploitation of children is part of a wider set of issues related to the vulnerability of poor people to the interests of the sex industry and national and international traffickers. It is an international problem requiring co-ordinated action. DFID's goal is to eliminate the poverty and social injustice that may lead to such abuses. Much of our focus is on reducing the risks of young people being recruited into the industry. With other Government Departments, we are supporting the efforts of Governments and international agencies to strengthen social protection policies and justice systems in line with the international treaty framework covering these issues.
  479W
  Examples of Government assistance include:
  funding the ILO's International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour;
  training the police in Sri Lanka and the Philippines to identify, prevent and counsel victims of sexual abuse;
  Supporting the Asia-Europe (ASEM) Resource Centre website which promotes agency co-operation, sharing of information and good practice;
  funding NGOs working with tour operators on developing a code of practice for the travel industry to eliminate child sex tourism.

  International Development contracts with KPMG

  File number

  Project title

  Current contract value (£)

  20013326

  Jamaica Performance Improvement Programme: Modernisation Vision and Strategy Paper for reform of Jamaican public service

  59,185

  20013102

  Andhra Pradesh support for the Governance Support Programme

  801,962

  20012861

  Assistance to E-Governance Sub Group for Stability Pact South Eastern Europe Initiative

  92,075

  20012520

  Support for National Anti-Corruption Strategy

  343,008

  20012262

  Results Orientated Management Implementation Support

  165,468

  20012312

  Jamaica Performance Improvement Programme: Managing Consultancy to Provide a Programme of Support for the Ministry of Education and Cult

  363,240

  20012209

  Improving Public Service through Provision of One Stop Shops

  194,900

  20012131

  Business and Employment Centres (BEC): Independent Project Audit

  6,000

  20001628

  Guyana Water Sector Programme: Phase 1—Lead Consultants

  556,451

  20001561

  Vulnerable Children in Ekaterinburg and Sverdlovsk Oblast: External Audit of Accounts by Third Party

  12,000

  20001028

  Contract Management Constabulary Reform and Modernisation Project

  2,661,940

  20000640

  Performance Review of Ministry of Finance

  696,084

  20000139

  Support to the Bulgarian Export Insurance Agency

  609,473

  19998996

  Ministry for the Environment Natural Resources and Fish (SEMARNAP) Institutional Strengthening,

  617,350

  19997355

  Monitoring and Evaluation Project: Programme for Regional Sustainable Development (Proders) Support for Improving Corporate Services and Management in the Rwanda Revenue Authority

  2,461,845

  19984694

  Private Sector Infrastructure Development Project

  5,032,976

  MAL/72/01

  BLM (Banja La M'Tsogola) Integrated Sexual Reproductive Health

  1,704

  DCP/PERW/WI

  Personal Wages and Employment Review

  38,868

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much each registered provider under the ILA scheme was owed by her Department when the scheme was(a) closed and (b) suspended. [28855]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The amount of payment owed to individual providers is held as commercial in confidence. The ILA programme was closed on 23 November, not suspended. At the date of closure the total value of learning confirmed on the ILA Centre system was £14.8 million. Payment of £3.5 million for confirmed learning was made on 20 December to 1,383 learning providers, which is 91 per cent. of those who had confirmed learning up to 21 November. 136 provider claims with a total value of £11.3 million are held while complaints and concerns about the learning delivered are investigated.

  We have as a matter of priority carried out work to finalise checks of providers' claims made between 21 and 23 November to enable further payments to be made. The total amount of these claims is £4.65 million, of which £2.23 million was paid to 1,241 learning providers last week. This represents 94 per cent. of those who had confirmed learning by 23 November. A further 84 provider claims with a total value of £2.42 million are held while complaints and concerns about the learning delivered are investigated.

  Contracts (KPMG)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contracts her Department has with KPMG; and what the value is of each one. [31321]

  Clare Short
  My Department currently has 18 contracts with KPMG. The table lists contracts and values.

  Teacher Retention
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what initiatives she is undertaking to improve teacher retention rates in schools. [30527]

  Mr. Timms
  Retaining good teachers within the profession is key to continuing to raise standards in schools. Our research has consistently shown that workload is a significant factor in influencing teachers to leave the profession. That is why we have asked the School Teachers' Review Body to consider the findings of the recent PricewaterhouseCoopers study that we commissioned into reducing teachers' workloads. The STRB will report to us by the end of April this year and we have already announced the piloting of 30 school work force pathfinders to test out innovative solutions to reducing work load and bureaucracy in schools. In addition, we made £33 million available in 2001–02 directly to schools in those parts of the country where problems are greatest to fund local recruitment and retention initiatives. We have recently announced a further £44 million for 2002–03. More than 3,500 teachers will also receive assistance to purchase homes in areas of high price or demand as part of the Government's £250 million starter homes initiative. We have also announced our proposal to accept the STRB's recently announced recommendations, including a further above inflation pay increase of 3.5 per cent. for all teachers and that good, experienced, teachers should in future be able to receive a £2,148 pay increase on crossing the threshold after five years instead of seven. My right hon. Friend the
  481W
  Secretary of State set out our longer term proposals for teachers and teaching in a pamphlet, "Professionalism and Trust", published in November 2001.

  School Exclusions
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils were permanently excluded from school by region expressed as(a) a percentage of school population and (b) the total number, in descending order according to percentage figures in the latest year in which figures are available. [30601]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Number of permanent exclusions in schools1 1999–2000— Government office regions and local education authorities in England

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of the school population2

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  England

  8,323

  0.11

  100.00

  Government office regions

  North West

  1,314

  0.12

  15.8

  London

  1,289

  0.12

  15.5

  West Midlands

  1.104

  0.12

  13.3

  South East

  1,251

  0.11

  15.0

  North East

  482

  0.11

  5.8

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  819

  0.10

  9.8

  East Midlands

  696

  0.10

  8.4

  East of England

  735

  0.09

  8.8

  South West

  633

  0.09

  7.6

  Local education authorities

  City of London

  1

  0.45

  0.01

  Wandsworth

  94

  0.33

  1.13

  Sandwell

  132

  0.25

  1.59

  Doncaster

  121

  0.23

  1.45

  Kensington and Chelsea

  24

  0.23

  0.29

  Leicester

  107

  0.22

  1.29

  Liverpool

  175

  0.22

  2.10

  Salford

  77

  0.22

  0.93

  Westminster

  39

  0.22

  0.47

  Lewisham

  75

  0.21

  0.90

  Bristol, City of

  104

  0.21

  1.25

  Southwark

  69

  0.20

  0.83

  Reading

  35

  0.20

  0.42

  Telford and Wrekin

  50

  0.19

  0.60

  Bracknell Forest

  29

  0.19

  0.35

  Coventry

  95

  0.19

  1.14

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  73

  0.19

  0.88

  Croydon

  87

  0.18

  1.05

  Darlington

  27

  0.17

  0.32

  Manchester

  114

  0.17

  1.37

  Medway

  75

  0.17

  0.90

  Halton

  35

  0.16

  0.42

  Thurrock

  36

  0.16

  0.43

  Blackburn with Darwen

  40

  0.16

  0.48

  North Tyneside

  50

  0.16

  0.60

  Stoke-on-Trent

  60

  0.16

  0.72

  Birmingham

  274

  0.15

  3.29

  Enfield

  73,

  0.15

  0.88

  Brent

  57

  0.15

  0.68

  North Lincolnshire

  39

  0.15

  0.47

  North Somerset

  41

  0.15

  0.49

  Waltham Forest

  53

  0.15

  0.64

  Brighton and Hove

  45

  0.15

  0.54

  Sheffield

  111

  0.15

  1.33

  Hounslow

  52

  0.14

  0.62

  Durham

  114

  0.14

  1.37

  Redcar and Cleveland

  37

  0.14

  0.44

  South Tyneside

  36

  0.14

  0.43

  North East Lincolnshire

  38

  0.13

  0.46

  Harrow

  39

  0.13

  0.47

  Worcestershire

  109

  0.13

  1.31

  Bury

  39

  0.13

  0.47

  Bradford

  116

  0.13

  1.39

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  25

  0.13

  0.30

  482W

  Number of permanent exclusions in schools1 1999–2000— Government office regions and local education authorities in England

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of the school population2

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  Nottingham

  55

  0.13

  0.66

  Peterborough

  38

  0.13

  0.46

  Richmond upon Thames

  25

  0.13

  0.30

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  21

  0.12

  0.25

  West Sussex

  131

  0.12

  1.57

  Derby

  47

  0.12

  0.56

  Oldham

  51

  0.12

  0.61

  Barnsley

  43

  0.12

  0.52

  Kent

  253

  0.12

  3.04

  Greenwich

  43

  0.12

  0.52

  Barnet

  57

  0.12

  0.68

  Rochdale

  43

  0.12

  0.52

  Hackney

  31

  0.12

  0.37

  Stockport

  51

  0.12

  0.61

  Sefton

  56

  0.12

  0.67

  Hillingdon

  47

  0.12

  0.56

  Lambeth

  31

  0.11

  0.37

  Herefordshire

  27

  0.11

  0.32

  Southend-on-Sea

  29

  0.11

  0.35

  Cheshire

  119

  0.11

  1.43

  Kirklees

  72

  0.11

  0.87

  Wakefield

  59

  0.11

  0.71

  East Sussex

  72

  0.11

  0.87

  Lincolnshire

  107

  0.11

  1.29

  Warwickshire

  82

  0.11

  0.99

  Bolton

  50

  0.11

  0.60

  Tameside

  41

  0.11

  0.49

  Gloucestershire

  91

  0.11

  1.09

  Barking and Dagenham

  31

  0.11

  0.37

  Wigan

  53

  0.10

  0.64

  Blackpool

  21

  0.10

  0.25

  Walsall

  51

  0.10

  0.61

  Hampshire

  181

  0.10

  2.17

  Bath and North East Somerset

  26

  0.10

  0.31

  Portsmouth

  27

  0.10

  0.32

  Milton Keynes

  35

  0.10

  0.42

  Hertfordshire

  175

  0.10

  2.10

  Northamptonshire

  105

  0.10

  1.26

  Suffolk

  100

  0.10

  1.20

  Solihull

  37

  0.10

  0.44

  Warrington

  32

  0.10

  0.38

  Camden

  22

  0.10

  0.26

  Merton

  23

  0.10

  0.28

  Surrey

  133

  0.10

  1.60

  Torbay

  18

  0.09

  0.22

  St. Helens

  28

  0.09

  0.34

  Lancashire

  167

  0.09

  2.01

  Havering

  34

  0.09

  0.41

  Essex

  182

  0.09

  2.19

  Oxfordshire

  76

  0.09

  0.91

  Sunderland

  44

  0.09

  0.53

  Bedfordshire

  56

  0.09

  0.67

  Somerset

  62

  0.09

  0.74

  Hartlepool

  15

  0.09

  0.18

  Tower Hamlets

  31

  0.09

  0.37

  Wirral

  47

  0.08

  0.56

  Leicestershire

  80

  0.08

  0.96

  Islington

  20

  0.08

  0.24

  Buckinghamshire

  63

  0.08

  0.76

  Nottinghamshire

  102

  0.08

  1.23

  Bexley

  33

  0.08

  0.40

  Devon

  79

  0.08

  0.95

  Stockton-on-Tees

  27

  0.08

  0.32

  Trafford

  30

  0.08

  0.36

  Northumberland

  42

  0.08

  0.50

  Wokingham

  19

  0.08

  0.23

  Cornwall

  58

  0.08

  0.70

  Derbyshire

  91

  0.08

  1.09

  Kingston upon Thames

  16

  0.08

  0.19

  Dudley

  39

  0.08

  0.47

  Staffordshire

  99

  0.07

  1.19

  Norfolk

  84

  0.07

  1.01

  Haringey

  25

  0.07

  0.30

  Rotherham

  32

  0.07

  0.38

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  30

  0.07

  0.36

  Newham

  33

  0.07

  0.40

  Redbridge

  29

  0.07

  0.35

  483W

  Number of permanent exclusions in schools1 1999–2000— Government office regions and local education authorities in England

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of the school population2

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  Swindon

  20

  0.07

  0.24

  Sutton

  19

  0.07

  0.23

  West Berkshire

  16

  0.07

  0.19

  Dorset

  35

  0.06

  0.42

  York

  16

  0.06

  0.19

  Wiltshire

  41

  0.06

  0.49

  Ealing

  27

  0.06

  0.32

  Wolverhampton

  26

  0.06

  0.31

  Bromley

  28

  0.06

  0.34

  Leeds

  71

  0.06

  0.85

  South Gloucestershire

  23

  0.06

  0.28

  Shropshire

  23

  0.06

  0.28

  Isle of Wight

  11

  0.06

  0.13

  Plymouth

  23

  0.06

  0.28

  Slough

  10

  0.05

  0.12

  Cumbria

  39

  0.05

  0.47

  Southampton

  15

  0.05

  0.18

  Luton

  15

  0.05

  0.18

  Gateshead

  14

  0.05

  0.17

  North Yorkshire

  40

  0.05

  0.48

  Rutland

  2

  0.04

  0.02

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  20

  0.04

  0.24

  Bournemouth

  7

  0.03

  0.08

  Calderdale

  11

  0.03

  0.13

  Cambridgeshire

  20

  0.03

  0.24

  Poole

  5

  0.03

  0.06

  Knowsley

  6

  0.02

  0.07

  Middlesbrough

  3

  0.01

  0.04

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  1 Includes maintained primary and secondary schools and all special schools.

  2 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of full and part-time pupils of all ages in primary, secondary and special schools, excluding dually registered pupils in special schools in January 2000.

  3 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the total number of exclusions.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Examination Results
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils gained no GCSE above grade D by region, expressed as(a) a percentage of population and (b) the total number, in descending order according to percentage for the latest year for which figures are available. [30602]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The percentage and number of 15-year-old pupils in schools in England in 2000–01 that gained no GCSE above grade D or the GNVQ equivalent are as follows:

  As a percentage of 15-year-old pupils

  Number gained no grade above D

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  31.4

  19,760

  North East

  31.3

  10,422

  East Midlands

  27.8

  14,339

  West Midlands

  27.6

  18,753

  North West

  27.5

  24,636

  London

  25.0

  19,407

  East of England

  22.7

  14,847

  South West

  22.6

  13,312

  South East

  22.2

  21,306

  England

  26.0

  156,782

  Local Education Authorities (Repair and Renewal Costs)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 446W, on local education authorities, if she will estimate the repair and renewal costs for each local education authority as a percentage of the education authority's annual budget for the latest available year; if she will rank them to show the highest to the lowest repair and renewal bill as a share of total LEA budget; and if she will make a statement. [31011]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The table contains information relating to expenditure on repairs as a percentage of Net Current Expenditure after recharges:

  LEA number

  LEA name

  Percentage

  357

  Tameside

  15.12

  305

  Bromley

  9.37

  372

  Rotherham

  6.67

  393

  South Tyneside

  6.34

  861

  Stoke on Trent

  6.05

  303

  Bexley

  5.87

  916

  Gloucestershire

  5.40

  302

  Barnet

  5.27

  384

  Wakefield

  5.17

  205

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5.05

  306

  Croydon

  4.97

  877

  Warrington

  4.97

  812

  North East Lincolnshire

  4.74

  808

  Stockton-on-Tees

  4.65

  301

  Barking and Dagenham

  4.64

  330

  Birmingham

  4.19

  851

  Portsmouth

  4.19

  891

  Nottinghamshire

  4.13

  826

  Milton Keynes

  4.12

  894

  Telford and Wrekin

  4.11

  333

  Sandwell

  4.09

  883

  Thurrock

  4.04

  212

  Wandsworth

  3.93

  929

  Northumberland

  3.85

  806

  Middlesbrough

  3.71

  937

  Warwickshire

  3.68

  810

  City of Kingston Upon Hull

  3.67

  875

  Cheshire

  3.53

  878

  Devon

  3.52

  888

  Lancashire

  3.33

  343

  Sefton

  3.31

  815

  North Yorkshire

  3.27

  871

  Slough

  3.24

  805

  Hartlepool

  3.23

  846

  Brighton and Hove

  3.17

  342

  St. Helens

  3.13

  311

  Havering

  3.11

  837

  Bournemouth

  3.05

  855

  Leicestershire

  3.03

  803

  South Gloucestershire

  3.03

  870

  Reading

  3.02

  831

  City of Derby

  2.98

  800

  Bath and North East Somerset

  2.97

  884

  Herefordshire

  2.97

  919

  Hertfordshire

  2.97

  352

  Manchester

  2.96

  882

  Southend

  2.95

  344

  Wirral

  2.92

  359

  Wigan

  2.90

  928

  Northamptonshire

  2.88

  210

  Southwark

  2.88

  353

  Oldham

  2.86

  925

  Lincolnshire

  2.83

  876

  Halton

  2.82

  485W

  LEA number

  LEA name

  Percentage

  836

  Poole

  2.80

  840

  Durham

  2.79

  373

  Sheffield

  2.78

  889

  Blackburn with Darwen

  2.77

  319

  Sutton

  2.74

  821

  Luton

  2.73

  825

  Buckinghamshire

  2.73

  304

  Brent

  2.70

  935

  Suffolk

  2.68

  203

  Greenwich

  2.67

  908

  Cornwall

  2.67

  926

  Norfolk

  2.66

  850

  Hampshire

  2.65

  811

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2.64

  802

  North Somerset

  2.63

  358

  Trafford

  2.63

  381

  Calderdale

  2.62

  845

  East Sussex

  2.61

  356

  Stockport

  2.60

  874

  City of Peterborough

  2.60

  213

  City of Westminster

  2.57

  886

  Kent

  2.56

  318

  Richmond Upon Thames

  2.56

  307

  Ealing

  2.55

  332

  Dudley

  2.53

  380

  Bradford

  2.52

  881

  Essex

  2.51

  852

  Southampton

  2.49

  938

  West Sussex

  2.48

  873

  Cambridgeshire

  2.44

  382

  Kirklees

  2.43

  869

  West Berkshire

  2.42

  892

  City of Nottingham

  2.39

  208

  Lambeth

  2.39

  857

  Rutland

  2.39

  841

  Darlington

  2.38

  390

  Gateshead

  2.38

  909

  Cumbria

  2.38

  313

  Hounslow

  2.36

  816

  York

  2.36

  921

  Isle of Wight

  2.36

  865

  Wiltshire

  2.35

  867

  Bracknell Forest

  2.35

  201

  City of London

  2.32

  308

  Enfield

  2.31

  890

  Blackpool

  2.31

  868

  Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

  2.30

  872

  Wokingham

  2.30

  341

  Liverpool

  2.29

  391

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  2.28

  887

  Medway

  2.27

  336

  Wolverhampton

  2.26

  315

  Merton

  2.25

  371

  Doncaster

  2.24

  370

  Barnsley

  2.24

  314

  Kingston Upon Thames

  2.23

  807

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2.21

  355

  Salford

  2.19

  312

  Hillingdon

  2.17

  317

  Redbridge

  2.17

  340

  Knowsley

  2.15

  207

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2.12

  354

  Rochdale

  2.09

  351

  Bury

  2.07

  893

  Shropshire

  2.06

  801

  City of Bristol

  2.06

  835

  Dorset

  2.04

  310

  Harrow

  2.04

  885

  Worcestershire

  2.03

  879

  City of Plymouth

  2.01

  936

  Surrey

  1.99

  202

  Camden

  1.99

  394

  Sunderland

  1.95

  486W

  LEA number

  LEA name

  Percentage

  331

  Coventry

  1.93

  211

  Tower Hamlets

  1.93

  860

  Staffordshire

  1.92

  316

  Newham

  1.81

  856

  Leicester City

  1.81

  206

  Islington

  1.75

  880

  Torbay

  1.73

  309

  Haringey

  1.72

  209

  Lewisham

  1.68

  813

  North Lincolnshire

  1.64

  830

  Derbyshire

  1.58

  334

  Solihull

  1.48

  335

  Walsall

  1.47

  350

  Bolton

  1.32

  420

  Isles of Scilly

  1.26

  933

  Somerset

  1.21

  383

  Leeds

  1.17

  866

  Swindon

  1.06

  931

  Oxfordshire

  0.90

  392

  North Tyneside

  0.75

  204

  Hackney

  0.43

  320

  Waltham Forest

  0.20

  820

  Bedfordshire

  0.06

  Note:

  The information is taken from the 1990–2000 section 52 outturn statements completed by local education authorities and returned to the DIES. Total expenditure on non-capital building works (including repairs and maintenance of buildings, and non-capital expenditure on fixed plants and grounds) is a percentage of net current expenditure (NCE) after recharges.

  Special Educational Needs
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will ensure that the total inclusion policy will not lead to the closure of special schools and nursery units by means of non-referral of pupils. [31247]

  Mr. Timms
  Decisions about the individual placement of children with special educational needs and the pattern of provision to provide for their needs are determined locally. In promoting the inclusion of children with special educational needs the Government have sought to ensure excellence and choice. Greater inclusion does not mean it will be harder for parents whose children have a statement to secure a place for their child in a special school. Where appropriate local education authorities should name a special school in a child's statement. The Government have underlined that there is a vital and continuing role for special schools. We are encouraging and supporting special schools to become outward looking centres of excellence, their staff working in partnership with their mainstream colleagues.

  Schools and Admissions Forums
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many letters of(a) support and (b) opposition she has received to the Government's proposals on (i) schools forums, and (ii) admissions forums. [31385]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: Although our proposals for schools forums were first set out in the White Paper "Schools: Achieving Success", a full consultation exercise has not yet been held and only a minimal amount of correspondence has yet been received on this topic. The Department will be undertaking a formal consultation exercise in spring 2002

  487W
  on the constitution and functions of schools forums. By 7 November 2001, our school admissions consultation had received 324 responses (78 per cent.) supporting our proposals for mandatory admissions forums, at least to some extent, and 79 replies from those who disagreed.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 222W, on class sizes, if she will list the (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in the Hillingdon local education authority with 31 pupils or more as at January 2001. [31453]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is as follows:Maintained primary and secondary schools within Hillingdon local education authority with one or more classes of 31 or more pupils taught by one teacher—January 2001

  Maintained Primary Schools:

  Belmore Primary School

  Bourne Primary School

  Breakspear Junior School

  Colham Manor Infant School

  Coteford Infant School

  Cowley Infant School

  Deanesfield Primary School

  Field End Junior School

  Harefield Infant School

  Harmondsworth Primary School

  Lady Bankes Infant School

  Minet Junior School

  Newnham Junior School

  Newnham Infant and Nursery School

  Ryefield Primary School

  William Byrd School

  Hermitage Primary School

  Brookside Primary School

  Highfield Primary School

  Rabbsfarm Primary School

  Warrender Primary School

  Cranford Park Primary School

  Ruislip Gardens Primary School

  Hillingdon Primary School

  Wood End Park Community School

  Cherry Lane Primary School

  Holy Trinity CofE Primary School

  St. Swithun Wells RC Primary School

  Botwell House RC Primary School

  Sacred Heart RC Primary School

  Oak Farm Junior School

  Grange Park Infant School

  Hillside Infant School

  Charville Primary School

  Hayes Park School

  488W
  Maintained Secondary Schools

  Evelyns Community School

  Bishop Ramsey CofE Voluntary Aided Secondary School

  Bishopshalt School

  Vyners School

  Queensmead School

  Uxbridge High School

  The Hayes Manor School

  The Douay Martyrs Roman Catholic School

  Swakeleys School

  Harlington Community School.

  Teachers' Pay
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the ratio is between the average earnings of a secondary school head and the average house price in(a) Surrey, (b) London, (c) Yorkshire and (d) Tyne and Wear. [31500]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The ratios between earnings and house prices based on the average salaries (provisional) of full-time secondary head teachers in the maintained schools sector in England in March 2000, are as follows:

  Region

  Salary to house price1 ratio

  Surrey

  1:3.1

  Greater London

  1:3.6

  Yorkshire

  1:1.2

  Tyne and Wear

  1:1.2

  1 The house prices used are the average prices of semi-detached houses sold from January to March 2000.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the ratio is between the average earnings of a primary school head and the average house price in(a) Surrey, (b) London, (c) Yorkshire and (d) Tyne and Wear. [31553]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The ratios between earnings and house prices based on the average salaries (provisional) of full-time primary head teachers in the maintained schools sector in England in March 2000, are as follows:

  Region

  Salary to house price1 ratio

  Surrey

  1:4.3

  Greater London

  1:4.8

  Yorkshire

  1:1.7

  Tyne and Wear

  1:1.7

  1 The house prices used are the average prices of semi-detached houses sold from January to March 2000.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the ratio is between the average earnings of a teacher and the average house price in(a) Surrey, (b) London, (c) Yorkshire and (d) Tyne and Wear (i) three and (ii) 10 years after qualification. [31554]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The ratios between earnings and house price, based on the average salaries (provisional) of full-time regular qualified teachers with three and ten years' service, who were in service in the maintained schools sector in England in March 2000, are as follows.
  489W

  Salary to house price1 ratio

  Region

  Qualified in 1996, with three years' service by March 2000

  Qualified in 1989, with ten years' service by March 2000

  Surrey

  1:8.0

  1:5.8

  Greater London

  1:8.6

  1:6.5

  Yorkshire

  1:3.0

  1:2.2

  Tyne and Wear

  1:3.1

  1:2.3

  1The house prices used are the average prices of semi-detached houses sold from January to March 2000.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average earnings of a teacher are in(a) Surrey and (b) London. [31557]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The average earnings (provisional) of full-time regular qualified teachers in the maintained schools sector in Surrey and London in March 2000 (latest available) were as follows.

  £

  Surrey

  24,700

  Greater London

  27,300

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total external spend by his 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 his Department over this period; and if he will make a statement. [31040]

  Mr. MacShane
  Over the last four years 10 consultancy firms have been engaged to support private finance initiative projects. Total expenditure has been as follows:

  £

  1998–99

  986,645

  1999–2000

  1,192,086

  2000–01

  356,640

  2001–02

  81,740

  Detailed information about the average cost of each consultant could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the establishment of joint Anglo/Spanish bodies with responsibility for issues concerning Gibraltar will require the consent of the(a) Government of Gibraltar and (b) people of Gibraltar in a referendum. [30671]
  490W
  Peter Hain
  Discussions under the Brussels Process are aimed at overcoming all the differences between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar and at promoting co-operation on a mutually beneficial basis. The Government will stand by the commitment to the people of Gibraltar set out in the preamble of the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what talks have taken place under the Brussels Process regarding the possibility of joint Anglo/Spanish sharing of the policing of Gibraltar. [30627]

  Peter Hain
  None.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the creation of a joint Anglo/Spanish body with responsibility for(a) Gibraltar's airport and (b) Gibraltar's foreign affairs will be discussed under the Brussels Process. [30669]

  Peter Hain
  Discussions under the Brussels Process will continue to include economic, cultural, touristic, aviation, environmental matters and the issue of sovereignty.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has for the celebration for the 300th anniversary of British presence in Gibraltar. [30701]

  Peter Hain
  The 300th anniversary of the British presence in Gibraltar will fall in 2004. An announcement regarding celebrations will be made at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if a referendum on a bilateral agreement between the UK and Spain under the terms of the Brussels Process will be called only with the consent of the Government of Gibraltar; and if a bilateral agreement between Britain and Spain under the terms of the Brussels Process will lapse if rejected by voters in Gibraltar in a referendum. [30623]

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

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. [31056]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I met the Chief Minister of Gibraltar most recently on 25 January. We discussed various proposals to meet his concerns, invited him to stay in close touch, and await his response.

  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consulting assistance the UK is providing to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Government in implementing democratic processes. [30859]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office currently funds 18 UK secondees to the OSCE Mission in Macedonia, one of whose main functions is to assist the Government of Macedonia with the implementation of the Framework Agreement signed in August 2001. Since February 2001 a separate two-year project under the auspices of the Department for International Development
  491W
  has been helping the Macedonian Government with a comprehensive programme of public administration reform. The scope of this project was extended in October 2001 to take into account the requirements of the Framework Agreement.

  Visas
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of applications for visas to the UK Embassy in Prague, have been rejected in each year since 1 January 2000. [31575]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The percentages of applications refused are as follows:

  2000—4 per cent.

  2001—4 per cent.1

  1Still awaiting December statistics.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons have applied to the UK Embassy in Prague, for visas to(a) visit and (b) work in the UK in each year since 1 January 2000. [31576]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The numbers of applications received are as follows:

  Visitors

  Work permit

  2000

  1,386

  63

  20011

  301

  24

  1 The figures for 2001 are for the period January to March 2001. We only collect statistics from Prague on an annual basis. Future statistics will be collected on a financial year basis and are due to be collected during April 2002.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons have applied to the UK embassy in Turkey for visas to(a) visit and (b) work in the UK in each year since 1 January 2000. [31577]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The number of applications received at the embassy in Ankara and the consulate general in Istanbul are as follows:

  Visitors

  Work permit

  2000

  52,553

  423

  20011

  10,970

  164

  1 The figures for 2001 are for the period January to March 2001. We collect these statistics only on an annual basis. Future statistics will be on a financial year basis and are due to be collected during April 2002.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of applications for visas to the UK Embassy in Turkey have been refused in each year since 1 January 2000. [31574]

  Dates

  Countries visited

  Size of entourage(officials plus security)

  Means of travel

  12 September

  Belgium (Special GAC)

  8

  RAF HS12

  18 September

  Belgium

  6

  RAF HS12

  21 September

  Belgium (Extraordinary European Council)

  13

  RAF BAe1

  492W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The percentage of applications refused at the embassy in Ankara and the consulate general in Istanbul is as follows:

  Percentage

  2000

  3.4

  2001

  6

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for entry visas for ministers of religion are being processed by the high commission in Nairobi; and what the status of these applications is. [31690]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The high commission in Nairobi have received no new applications from ministers of religion so far this year. There is, however, one unresolved application from 2001.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the aims and objectives are of Her Majesty's Government's policies towards Zimbabwe. [31843]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The United Kingdom aims to promote a stable, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe.

  Iraq
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the objectives are of Her Majesty's Government's policy on Iraq. [31844]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our objective is to secure full compliance by Iraq with its obligations under the relevant Security Council resolutions, so allowing its reintegration into the international community. While the Iraq regime continues to refuse to co-operate with the UN, our policy is and must remain based on the imperative of containing the very real threat posed by the Iraqi regime to its own people and to its neighbours.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 884–85W, on ministerial visits, what the size of his entourage was on each of the visits; if transport was provided by (a) the RAF and (b) a commercial carrier; and where applicable, what the chartering costs were. [31704]

  Mr. Straw
  Further to my answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 884–5W, the following gives further information about my official visits overseas since 11 September 2001.

  A detailed list of Cabinet Ministers' overseas visits for the period April 2001 to March 2002, including costs, will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year.
  493W

  Dates

  Countries visited

  Size of entourage (officials plus security)

  Means of travel

  24–27 September

  Jordan, Iran, Israel, Egypt

  15

  RAF BAe1

  8 October

  Luxembourg (GAC)

  10

  RAF HS12

  17 October

  Luxembourg (GAC)

  8

  RAF BAe1

  17–18 October

  Turkey

  9

  RAF BAe1

  23–25 October

  USA

  10

  Schedule flights

  29 October

  Luxembourg (GAC)

  12

  RAF HS12

  30–31 October

  Poland, Russia

  12

  RAF BAe1

  9–14 October

  USA (UNGA)

  18

  Schedule flights

  19 November

  Belgium (GAC)

  9

  RAF HS12

  19–20 November

  Spain

  13

  RAF HS12

  21–23 November

  Iran, Pakistan

  14

  RAF VC10

  6–7 December

  Belgium (NAC meeting)

  11

  RAF HS12

  10 December

  Belgium (GAC)

  11

  RAF HS12

  13–15 December

  Belgium (Laeken European Council)

  118

  RAF BAe1

  21–23 January

  Democratic Repubic of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda

  2,318

  French Government Aircraft

  28 January

  Belgium (GAC)

  12

  RAF HS12

  1 FCO delegation

  2 UK delegation

  3 Joint visit with French Foreign Minister Vedrine

  Special Envoys
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for special envoys to represent him on visits to(a) Latin America and (b) Asia. [31686]

  Mr. Straw
  I currently have a special envoy of Afghanistan, Mr. Robert Cooper.

  I have no current plans to appoint other special envoys to represent me on visits to Latin America or Asia.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) under what(a) powers and (b) circumstances high commissions are able to delay the implementation of an appeal decision by an immigration adjudicator; [31691]

  (2) under what (a) powers and (b) circumstances, high commissions can refuse to implement an appeal decision made by an immigration adjudicator. [31692]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are no powers or circumstances under which an Entry Clearance Officer may delay unnecessarily the implementation of an appeal decision made by an immigration adjudicator. However, there are a number of steps in the appeals procedure following an adjudication. Implementation is not instantaneous. There are circumstances in which an Entry Clearance Officer can refuse entry clearance subsequent to a decision by an immigration adjudicator to allow an appeal against refusal of entry clearance. I will write separately to the hon. Member giving a detailed explanation of relevant legislation and guidance.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Contracts (KPMG)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Solicitor-General what contracts her Department has with KPMG; and what the value is of each one. [31324]
  494W
  The Solicitor-General
  My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department and Crown Prosecution Service have no current contracts with KPMG.

  The Serious Fraud Office has one current contract with KPMG, the estimated value of which is £6,000.

DEFENCE

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what equipment has been stolen from his Department since 1 May 1997; and what the approximate value of each item was. [26839]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: Reported cases of stolen equipment are held centrally on a summary basis and relate only to suspected theft by Crown personnel and contractors of stores and equipment, usually recorded as multiples or combinations of small value items such as tools, items of clothing, foodstuffs etc. Full details relating to each item of equipment proven to have been stolen could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, a list of separately identified discrete items suspected of being stolen and with an estimated individual or collective loss value of 31,000 or more is given as follows:

  £

  Laptop Computers (34)

  76,688

  Night Vision Goggles

  1,600

  Camcorder

  1,260

  Dental Gold

  12,015

  Propeller Blades

  32,000

  Notebook Computer

  1,000

  VHS Recorders (2)

  1,000

  Engines (2)

  4,162

  Weapon Sight

  1,389

  Outboard Motor

  1,101

  Thinkpad Computer

  2,000

  Land Rover Tyres (15)

  1,537

  Weapon Sight

  1,736

  Binoculars (3)

  1,190

  Land Rover and Tools

  32,011

  495W

  £

  Laptop Computer/CD Rom/Printer

  3,485

  Industrial Cleaner

  1,551

  Spare Wheels (10)

  6,419

  Land Rover FFR

  30,000

  Personal Computer

  1,512

  Computer/Mouse/Keyboard

  1,400

  Night Vision Scope

  2,674

  Common Weapon Sight

  1,424

  Land Rover Spare Wheels (10)

  1,049

  Litepro Projector

  4,445

  Litepro Projector and Computer

  6,445

  Laptop Computer and Printer

  1,449

  LCD Projector

  4,274

  Operational Ration Packs (4,000)

  2,755

  Night Goggles (2)

  22,768

  Trailer

  3,698

  Computer/Printer/Fax/TV /VCR

  1,750

  Mobile Phones (4)Laptop Computer

  2,000

  Camouflage Poles

  3,500

  Personal Computer/printer/power unit

  3,000

  Diesel Stove

  2,918

  Mobile Phone 'Top-Up' Cards (400)

  13,300

  Landrover

  23,800

  Vauxhall Astra

  1,206

  Motorcycle

  1,915

  Outboard Motors (3)

  3,108

  Electric Winch

  1,772

  Altimeters (14)

  5,142

  Compact Projector/VCR

  1,921

  Nimrod
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on spending within the budget on the Nimrod MRA4 programme; how much liquidated damages the MOD is seeking for the project's delay from BAE; what alternative means of delivering MRA4 capability are being considered; and how much longer the project is expected to be delayed. [30285]

  Dr. Moonie
  The budgetary data being sought by the hon. Member are contained in the Ministry of Defence's Major Road Project Report 2001 under section 2—"Project Costs", including information on the forecast receipt of liquidated damages. As to the question of further delay, the Major Project report also noted that the Department was engaged in discussions with BAE Systems over the incremental delivery of the MRA4 capability. These discussions are close to being finalised with the company. Until the negotiations have been completed, it will not be possible to be definitive about the impact, if any, on delivery.

  There are no viable alternative means of delivery the MRA4 capability. Prior to selecting the MRA4 option. an investment appraisal was conducted that considered a full range of alternatives. The findings were conclusive and confirmed the requirement for MRA4. This view has not changed.

  Army Attributable Pensions
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds his Department dismissed the issue of retired officers or their widows who have continued to pay tax incorrectly on retired pay awarded since 1952 on the grounds of disability attributable to or aggravated by service in 1997. [31462]
  496W
  Dr. Moonie
  As I explained in my statement in the House on 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 891–902, with regard to tax exemption of Army attributable pensions, the error was uncovered by a retired Army pensioner, Major Perry. Our records show that Major Perry first raised the taxation of his service invaliding pension in December 1997. He then went through two stages of appeal at higher levels and at each his arguments were rejected. It was only when he made a further approach that the error was recognised. The issue turned on whether only Service Attributable Pensions were tax exempt or whether, as in Major Perry's case, Service Invaliding Pensions should also be exempt. At the initial appeal stages, the position with regard to the law was misinterpreted and the difference in practice between the Army on the one hand, and the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force on the other, had not become apparent. It was only in 1998 that the correct legal position was recognised and action to remedy the error put in hand. The point at issue was not straightforward. The error should, however, have been recognised when Major Perry first raised his concerns and I can only reiterate our apology to him and those other Army pensioners or their spouses affected.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the investigations his Department has undertaken to ascertain the reasons for incorrect calculation of taxation under the relevant legislation of retired pay awarded to Army officers since 1952 on the grounds of disability attributable to or aggravated by service; [31463]

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to identify retired officers and their widows who have continued to pay tax incorrectly on retired pay awarded since 1952 on the grounds of disability attributable to or aggravated by service; and if he will commission an independent inquiry on this issue. [31465]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has already reviewed the files of retired Army personnel and Army widows who had been in receipt of an invaliding pension; this involved some 20,000 files. When we identified the error in 1998, we provided information to ex-service and war widows' associations, who responded positively to our request to advertise the error to their members. We do not believe that there are many service personnel or their widows or widowers who have not been identified. None the less, we are keen to ensure that none has been missed. We have therefore provided details to help individuals identify if they might be affected on the MOD website. We intend to undertake national publicity shortly and we will use our service journals and other material which has a wide veterans' readership to ensure maximum coverage of this issue.

  I do not intend to commission an independent inquiry on this matter.

  The original error which allowed the taxation of Army attributable service invaliding pensions occurred in the early 1950s. At this distance, we would not expect all the relevant files to have been preserved and the Army personnel concerned will have retired and in many cases be deceased. Given the major changes to the way in which pensions are administered, over the period, I would also not expect there to be lessons of current relevance. I have, however, asked officials to assess whether there are any other pensions areas which may be similarly affected.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether widows of those who have died from asbestos-related diseases will be allowed to claim relating to pre-1987 matters; how many claims he expects to be submitted; and if he will make a statement [31144]

  Dr. Moonie
  Claims from widows of former service men whose husbands died after being exposed to asbestos before 15 May 1987 would be barred from pursuing a claim by section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. This legal restriction does not apply to widows of former civilian employees of the Department.

  The legal standing of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 has been challenged in the High Court in the case of Matthew v. Ministry of Defence on the basis that section 10 is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Judgment was handed down on 22 January 2002 in favour of the claimant, but the matter will now proceed to the Court of Appeal. Until such time as a higher authority has ruled upon the case, the Department's position concerning the settlement of claims predating the repeal on 15 May 1987 of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 remains unchanged. The Ministry of Defence is not able to predict how many claims may be submitted if a court of higher authority rules against the Department.

  A war pension and associated benefits is however available for the widows of former service men whose death was attributable to their service. Such pensions are administered by the War Pensions Agency.

  Gulf Veterans Illnesses
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his US counterpart on(a) the identification and treatment of and (b) compensation for Gulf War illness; and if he will make a statement. [31485]

  Dr. Moonie
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence nor any of his ministerial colleagues have had such discussions. However, the Ministry of Defence's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit has a full time Gulf Health Liaison Officer based in Washington DC, working with the US Military Veterans Health Co-ordinating Board and its subcommittees. Both directly and through the liaison officer, the MOD maintains close links with the relevant US authorities, including the executive office of the President, the Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Veterans' Affairs on all issues surrounding the complex issue of Gulf veterans' illnesses.

  No-fault compensations for UK service personnel disabled as a result of their service is provided through the War Pension Scheme (WPS). The WPS applies to all those who have served in the UK forces and is administered by the MOD's War Pensions Agency (WPA). As at 31 December 2001, the WPA had received 1,264 claims for war pension in respect of Gulf veterans' illnesses, of which 1,086 had resulted in an award. Veterans may also be eligible for an Armed Forces Pension Scheme occupational pension and, if they have been medically discharged, this is supplemented by
  498W
  attributable benefits linked to the degree of disability or non-attributable benefits linked to length of service, whichever is the greater.

  The MOD has about 2,000 active notices from veterans and members of their families of their intention to claim common law compensation in respect of illness allegedly arising from the Gulf conflict. However, we have still yet to receive any writs or claims of sufficient detail to allow these cases to be taken forward.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in each of the last four years. [27968]

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

  Medical Monitoring (Afghanistan)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department has taken in order to improve medical monitoring of UK personnel deployed in and around Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [28496]

  Mr. Ingram
  The symptoms of all International Security Assistance Force personnel requiring medical attention are recorded and categorised. These data are then processed to enable the early identification of any possible health problems.

  Devonport
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the latest estimated costs of construction for the Trident refit complex at Devonport Dockyard are; and if he will make a statement. [28808]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: The Trident refit complex forms part of the overall Project D154 works at Devonport, which will provide new and upgraded facilities for the refitting of the Royal Navy's SSNBs and SSNs. A revised incentivised cost-sharing arrangement has recently been agreed with the dockyard owner, DML, for the overall project. The Ministry of Defence's share of costs to completion are estimated to be in the region of £638 million to £659 million excluding VAT.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Trident refit complex at Devonport will be completely finished and certificated for use before the arrival of HMS Vanguard; and if he will make a statement. [28807]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: Not all the facilities within the Trident refit complex at Devonport are required to be available for the arrival of HMS Vanguard. There is an agreed programme in place to ensure that facilities will be brought on line as required within the overall Vanguard Class (Trident) submarine refitting programme. Each facility will be commissioned and the necessary approval obtained from the nuclear regulatory authorities to meet this programme. There is no question of a particular facility being used without the appropriate regulatory approval.

  Tomahawk
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Royal Navy plans to purchase remanufactured Raytheon Tactile Tomahawk missiles; and if he will make a statement. [29803]

  Dr. Moonie
  The UK has already purchased some remanufactured Raytheon Tomahawk land attack missiles to replace those used during the Kosovo campaign. A further purchase of these missiles is planned and negotiations with the US Government are in progress. Joint UK/US studies have also established the feasibility of a horizontally launched version of the next generation of the missile, Tactical Tomahawk, although no decision on purchase of these missiles has yet been taken.

  Submarines
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the technical difficulties are with the sonar upgrade to the Swiftsure and Trafalgar submarines; how much it will cost to complete the enhancement programme; and if he will make a statement. [30288]

  Dr. Moonie
  The technical difficulties associated with the sonar upgrade to the Swiftsure and Trafalgar submarines have centred on software engineering and associated signal data processing.

  The total estimated cost of the enhancement programme is £687 million.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Phase 2 of the Swiftsure and Trafalgar enhancement programme will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [30287]

  Dr. Moonie
  The final phase of the Swiftsure and Trafalgar update programme is in progress and enhancements are being incrementally incorporated into the latest Trafalgar class submarines. The first submarine installation of the final phase has been completed and has commenced sea trials. The final submarine upgrade fit is currently planned to be completed by 2009.

  Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bids are being considered for the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft; which companies have submitted bids; what costings have been submitted; what time scales have been proposed; and if he will make a statement. [30289]

  Dr. Moonie
  Two consortia have submitted bids for this prospective PFI programme, in response to an Invitation to Negotiate. They are: Air Tanker Ltd. comprising Cobham, Thales, Halliburton, EADS and Rolls Royce; and the Tanker and Transport Service Company Ltd. consisting of BAE Systems, Boeing, Serco and Spectrum capital. We are now in the early stages of detailed contract negotiations. When these are complete, both consortia will be invited to confirm or revise their bids. I am withholding details of their bids in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. We currently anticipate taking a formal investment decision in 2002, when we will select a preferred bidder if PFI remains the best value money solution. Contract award is scheduled for 2003 with the aim of providing the service from around 2007.

  IT Software
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the compatibility of his Department's IT software with other Government agencies. [30831]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence uses a range of software, both embedded in Defence equipment and in the office environment. The majority of the software products used in the office environment are commercially available and therefore potentially compatible with those used by many other organisations both inside and outside Government. The MOD has a number of electronic connections with other Government Departments with which it conducts business, including via the Government secure intranet.

  Tank Transporters
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the introduction of a fleet of tank transporters. [30832]

  Dr. Moonie
  The current fleet of tank transporters will be replaced with the Heavy Equipment Transport (HET) service being introduced under the private finance initiative. A full service, provided by 92 HET vehicles, will be introduced over a 12-month period beginning in 2003. In the interim the Service Demonstration phase, which commenced in December 2001, will provide assurance that all aspects of the Ministry of Defence's capability requirement have been satisfied.

  Refuelling Aircraft
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the URC-138(V) communication system to be fitted to VC10 and Tri Star refuelling aircraft. [30824]

  Dr. Moonie
  The programme to fit tactical data link systems, including URC-138(V) terminals, to RAF refuelling aircraft is expected to be completed by the end of April 2002.

  RAF Bases
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the time scale is for his review of the three RAF bases; and when he expects to announce a conclusion. [31450]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence began a Strategic Review of RAF Brize Norton, RAF Lyneham and RAF St. Mawgan in November 2001. The report is due to be completed by summer 2002, after which time, I expect to make an announcement.

  Dartmoor
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Ministry of Defence notified the Dartmoor National Park Authority of plans to erect new military lookout huts on Dartmoor National Park. [31182]

  Dr. Moonie
  No new lookout huts are proposed at present. Two military structures were replaced on existing bases in September and December 2001. The
  501W
  replacements were taken in accordance with past guidance and practice, and the Dartmoor National Park Authority has confirmed that there has been no procedural failure.

  The replacement of existing look out huts around the military training area on Dartmoor has taken place three times since 1994 using the 18/84 Planning Consultation Procedure. Programmed replacements are discussed with the appropriate planning authority as much as two years in advance of requirements, before submission of formal applications under this procedure. Information consultation also takes place through the Dartmoor Steering Group and its subsidiary working party.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the annual outlay of the Ministry of Defence for use of Duchy land on Dartmoor for military training was in the last 12 months. [31183]

  Dr. Moonie
  The annual outlay of the Ministry of Defence for the use of the Duchy land on Dartmoor for military training is made up of a number of items, including liabilities under the Duchy licence and payments to other landowners. These are deemed commercial in confidence and I am therefore withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 13 of Part II of the Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Other outlay of some £50,000 to £60,000 per year on general repairs and conservation cannot be apportioned between Duchy, MOD freehold and other owners land.

  Contracts (KPMG)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts his Department has with KPMG; and what the value is of each one. [31326]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently 29 extant contracts with KPMG. The values of individual contracts are withheld under Exemption 13 (third party's commercial confidences) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; however, the total value of all of the extant contracts is around £59 million.

  European Capabilities
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for a central pot of European funding for the extra investment needed to achieve the Helsinki Headline Goal; and if he will make a statement. [31621]

  Mr. Hoon
  None. Achievement of the Headline Goal is based on the principle of intergovernmental co-operation and a voluntary approach. Member states have offered national capabilities for potential EU-led operations and are now working together within the European Capabilities Action Plan to address the remaining shortfalls. The funding for any initiatives emerging from this process will be a matter for the member states involved.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the relevance of the Helsinki Headline Goal in the post-11 September security environment; and if he will make a statement. [31617]
  502W
  Mr. Hoon
  The European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) aims to enhance the ability of European nations to perform crisis management operations. The potential need for such operations remains. Many of the capabilities required by the Headline Goal would also be highly relevant in a military response to international terrorism.

  Light Anti-Armour Weapon
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what budget cuts have been made to the Next Generation Light Anti-Armour Weapon programme. [31102]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: As with other equipment, we keep under review the number of missiles for the Next Generation Light Anti-Armour Weapon to meet our requirement. Recent analysis suggests that we may be able to reduce numbers below current assumptions, but this is subject to further work. If resources were so released, we would use them elsewhere in the Defence programme to fund other high priority equipment.

  Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department intends to place in the Library the demonstration and manufacture contract for the Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air missile with MBDA. [31104]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: The contract for the Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile is currently being negotiated. We do not expect it to be concluded before the summer. I do not plan to place a copy of the contract in the Library of the House as it will be a commercial agreement between the Ministry of Defence and the company MBDA, and will be withheld in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. We do however intend publishing details of the contractual breakpoints in this contract, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in his statement to the House on 16 May 2000.

  A400M
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department intends to place in the Library the demonstration and manufacture contract for the A400M with Airbus Military Company. [31105]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: The A400M development and manufacture contract between OCCAR (acting as agent for the eight nations participating in the A400M programme) and Airbus Military was signed on 18 December 2001 but it will not be effective until German participation receives appropriate Bundestag approval. As the contract is a commercial arrangement, and involves relations with other governments, I plan to withhold it in accordance with Exemptions one and 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information which relate to international relations and third party's commercial confidences.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the oral statement given by the Secretary of
  503W
  State for International Development on 28 January 2002, Official Report, columns 21–36, if he will publish the terms of the Scoping Study on how to provide security across Afghanistan and begin the process of demobilisation and disarmament and the building and training of an Afghan army and police force; and if he will make a statement. [31811]

  Mr. Hoon
  In keeping with our role as current lead nation for the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul, the UK is committed to assisting the Afghan Interim Administration (AIA) as it begins the rebuilding of Afghanistan. The Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence are in the process of jointly commissioning a scoping study on security sector reform in Afghanistan, to be carried out in consultation with the AIA, the UN and other international partners. Its terms of reference are being finalised, and I will place a copy in the Library of the House in due course.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment was made of the provisions of articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter before the military conflict in Afghanistan was begun. [31058]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following the terrorist outrages on 11 September 2001, the Security Council adopted Resolutions 1368 (2001) on 12 September 2001 and 1373 (2001) on 28 September 2001, which condemned international terrorism. The latter imposed a series of measures to combat international terrorism in accordance with Article 41 of the Charter.

  Military operations against the al-Qaeda organisation and the Taliban regime which supported it were undertaken in the exercise of the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence, recognised in Article 51 of the Charter, to avert the continuing threat of attacks from that source. This right of self-defence was reaffirmed in Resolutions 1368 and 1373.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Disabled People
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what steps the Committee is taking to ensure that deafness and hearing loss are not barriers in contacting hon. Members. [31250]

  Mrs. Roe
  None. This is not the responsibility of the Administration Committee. However during the last Parliament the Committee considered a report of an audit by the RNID disability consultancy on the services and facilities provided in the Palace for deaf and hard of hearing people. Following that review a number of improvements were made. The House of Commons Information Office also advertises the fact that it welcomes calls via Typetalk.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what training the Committee has initiated for hon. Members and their staff in sign language and lip speaking. [31252]
  504W
  Mrs. Roe
  None. However I understand that in the past both the House authorities and voluntary organisations have offered seminars on providing services to constituents with disabilities. The Employers' Forum on Disability, to which the House authorities subscribe, has produced a publication called the MPs' Guide on Disability. This includes brief guidance on communicating with lip readers and communicating via an interpreter with a sign language user. Copies are available from the Department of Finance and Administration.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans the Committee has for providing(a) Braille translation facilities, (b) Braille typing facilities, (c) text phone availability and (d) text answer phone supply for hon. Members. [31249]

  Mrs. Roe
  None. This is not strictly a matter for the Committee. I understand that in the past Members with certain disabilities have benefited from additional facilities and equipment. Following the Resolutions of the House of 5 July 2001, a proportion of the new General Services Budget is available to meet certain extra costs incurred in making adjustments to the working conditions of Members with disabilities, or in providing special equipment. This could include the provision of special telephone equipment or Braille equipment, and training in its use.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what steps the Committee is taking to make methods of contacting hon. Members available to those people who are hard of hearing or visually impaired, known to these communities. [31253]

  Mrs. Roe
  None, this is not the responsibility of the Administration Committee. However the Department of Finance and Administration is able to advise on disability issues including methods of communication, and individual Members may publicise their willingness to receive BT TextDirect and RNID Typetalk calls.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans the Committee has for promoting the RNID Typetalk service with hon. Members. [31251]

  Mrs. Roe
  None. RNID Typetalk is a free service which relays conversations between people who use textphones and people who use voice telephones; Members do not need a dedicated telephone number in order to receive Typetalk calls.

  Passes
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee when she will publish rules on the criteria by which individuals may hold 28A Lobby, other Press Gallery, and other House of Commons passes. [30813]

  Mrs. Roe
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: Authorisation and control of House of Commons passes is the responsibility of the Sergeant at Arms who I understand intends to carry out a review of the qualifications associated with the various pass categories. Once the review is completed, I expect the Serjeant at Arms to report to the committee, and to publish details of any changes to the criteria for entitlement that are made as a result of the review.
  505W
  The committee continues to endorse the recommendations of the Second Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), 1987–88, "Access to the Precincts of the House" (HC580), which contains guidelines on the availability of passes.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Insolvency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the target on the unit cost of administering bankruptcy and compulsory liquidation cases. [23164]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As at the end of the last financial year, 31 March 2001, the unit cost of case administration by the Insolvency Service had increased by 9 per cent. This was principally the result of the direct costs of a new IT system implemented in 1999–2000, which accounted for 5.1 per cent. and the costs of implementing major IT change; the consequent training programme contributed significantly to the remainder.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to record the number of incidents and nature of damage to property caused by different types of fireworks. [26666]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: We have no plans. Damage to property is a matter for the Home Office.

  Enron
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will suspend Arthur Andersen accountants from Government contracts until the US Senate Committee investigation into Enron is completed. [28520]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 913–14W.

  Household Products
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to control the levels of toxicity used in household products; and if she will make a statement. [29703]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 744W.

  Regulations
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received regarding the impact of regulations on smaller businesses. [30164]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I regularly discuss the impact of regulation with SMEs and their representative bodies, including the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business.
  506W
  During a visit to Brussels next month, I am hosting a small business:europe event to champion the cause of SMEs in the fight against red tape. In light of this, I have written to all Small Business Council members (who advise on small business policy) and other SME stakeholders seeking their assistance in compiling a strong case with which to press their case with Commissioners and MEPs.

  Furthermore, the DTI review has strengthened the fight against red tape by giving regulatory responsibility to the chair of the Small Business Council.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the extra costs to pension funds of draft regulations on fixed term workers. [31838]

  Alan Johnson
  A regulatory impact assessment (RIA), detailing the costs and benefits of the draft Fixed Term Employees' (Prevention of less favourable treatment) Regulations, was published on 21 January this year and a copy is in the Library of the House. The RIA estimates the benefits to employees and costs to employers of preventing discrimination against fixed term employees as regards access to occupational pension schemes at £33–97 million, with some additional administration costs that it has not been possible to estimate. This figure does not take into account that, in some cases, employers will be able to objectively justify excluding fixed term employees from occupational pension schemes where they are unlikely to benefit.

  Rural Post Offices
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to grant additional funds to keep open rural sub-post offices threatened with closure under Consignia's strategic plan; and if she will make a statement. [29992]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: Consignia has submitted no such strategic plan. In addition to the £2 million fund to support volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or re-open post office facilities in rural areas where traditional services would otherwise close, the Government are committed to providing transitional financial assistance to rural post offices. Advice received at the end of last year from the Postal Services Commission on transitional financial assistance to the rural network is currently under consideration.

  BCCI
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how much was incurred in costs by the English liquidators' staff, and what the legal fees were for the trial of the stigma issue involving the former employees of BCCI; [31051]

  (2) how much was made in loan recoveries by the English liquidators from the former employees during 2000 and 2001; and what the costs incurred by the liquidators' staff and their solicitors in the same period were in relation to such loan recoveries and litigation of employees' claims. [31050]
  507W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department does not hold such information. These are matters for the liquidators of the company.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the creditors of BCCI will receive the next dividend payment. [31048]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This is a matter for the liquidators of the company.

  Enterprise Bill
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she plans to introduce the Enterprise Bill. [31697]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Proposals for an enterprise Bill were included in the Queen's Speech at the start of this parliamentary Session. The Government's proposals were then set out in two White Papers "Productivity and Enterprise: A World Class Competition Regime" and "Productivity and Enterprise: Insolvency—A Second Chance", published on 31 July 2001.

  The Government will introduce a Bill as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  South West RDA
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money the south-west RDA spent on advertising the South West in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 2000–01. [31828]

  Alan Johnson
  The first year of operation for the south-west RDA was 1999–2000. In 2000–01 the RDA spent approximately £30,000 on advertising the southwest. In that year the RDA also spent approximately £93,000 on inward investment promotion and publicity, targeted at attracting foreign-owned businesses to the south-west.

  European Competition Investigations
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many investigations have been launched by the European competition authorities into companies headquartered in(a) the UK, (b) France and (c) Germany in the past five years. [31387]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: This information is not available in the form requested.

  Energy Generation
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress towards more environmentally friendly energy generation. [29566]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit have recently undertaken a strategic review of the UK's energy policy including the longer-term role for renewable energy. The Government's work on developing environmentally friendly energy generation has continued throughout this period with several new initiatives being implemented to ensure the development of renewable sources of energy and cleaner coal technology.
  508W
  Subject to parliamentary approval, we shall shortly be implementing the Renewables Obligation. In addition, renewables generated electricity has been exempted from the climate change levy and existing Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) contracts have been protected. These measures will 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 and within this, we are setting up an extensive capital grants programme for offshore wind and energy crops projects, initiating a major photovoltaics demonstration programme, and boosting research and development.

  We recently implemented 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 study of the feasibility of an underwater cable to connect parts of the Western seaboard of the UK directly to the National Grid.

  In the Cleaner Coal technologies arena, the Government are already investing £12 million over the three-year period 2000–01 to 2002–03 on research and development. We will also be publishing in the very near future the findings of the review of the case for Government support for Clean Coal Technology power plant.

TREASURY

  Mental Health Statistics
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people suffered mental health problems 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. [30589]

  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 people suffered mental health problems by region. (30589)
  Estimates of the total number of people suffering from mental health problems in different regions are not available from current statistical sources. However, estimates of the percentage of adults aged 16 to 74 years living in private households who were suffering from a range of mental health problems can be obtained from the results of a survey carried out in 2000. This survey of psychiatric

  509W
  morbidity among adults in private households was carried by the Office for National Statistics on behalf of the Department of Health, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales.
  Approximately 8,800 people from all parts of Great Britain participated in the survey that involved personal interviews, which provided assessments of a range of mental disorders. An overview of the results of the survey was published last year in the report "Psychiatric morbidity among adults Living in Private Households, 2000" by Singleton et al., which is available from The Stationery Office or can be downloaded from the National Statistics website (www.statistics.gov.uk). The report presents estimates of the proportion of people suffering from neurotic disorders (such as anxiety and depression), psychotic disorders (for example, schizophrenia and manic depression) and alcohol and drug dependence, by NHS Regional Office area in England and in Scotland and Wales.
  It should be noted that, because the assessment instruments used covered different time periods and people may have more than one disorder, it is not possible to add the figures together to give a total number of people with a mental health problem.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to outsource distraint from the Inland Revenue to the private sector. [31393]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Proposals for any change in relation to distraint action by the Inland Revenue are still under consideration.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans there are to outsource information and advice on payments from the Inland Revenue to the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [31395]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has no plans to outsource the provision of information and advice on payments to the private sector.

  Debt Collection
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures will be introduced to ensure that private companies collecting debts from taxpayers are monitored. [31394]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The details of any proposals to outsource Inland Revenue distraint action are still under consideration.

  Public Sector Salaries
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average public sector salary is in(a) London and the south-east and (b) the north-east. [31388]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The average public sector salaries (gross weekly earnings) in London, the south-east and the north-east are as follows:

  London: £486

  South-east (excluding London): £414

  North-east: £371.

  The figures are for April 2000 from the New Earnings Survey.

  Figures for April 2001 will be published on 28 February 2002.

  NATS
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will provide additional public funding to enable the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions to provide financial assistance to NATS; [31649]

  (2) when he was advised of the concerns expressed by the CAA about the ability of the Airlines Group business plan for NATS to withstand a major incident. [31650]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  Tax Law Rewrite
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received relating to the Tax Law Rewrite Project. [31628]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am pleased to say the work of the Tax Law Rewrite Project continues to enjoy widespread support. In particular, the project's first Bill, on capital allowances, which received Royal Assent last March, has been well received by the tax community as a great improvement in clarity and accessibility.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pages of tax law have been published since the inception of the Tax Law Rewrite Project; and of that number, how many have been drafted as part of the Tax Rewrite Project. [31625]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Tax Law Rewrite Project began work in 1997 on rewriting direct tax legislation. Since that time approximately 2000 pages of Finance Act legislation has been enacted, covering both direct and indirect taxes, some of which incorporate the rewrite approach. In addition, the project's first Bill, on capital allowances, which received Royal Assent last March, runs to 333 pages. The aim is that the project's second Bill, concerning employment, pension and social security income, will be published in draft later this year.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pages of tax law were in existence following the Finance Acts of(a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) 2000; and what the projected total is for (i) 2010, (ii) 2020 and (iii) 2030. [31624]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Tax law is enacted in annual Finance Acts. Periodically, consolidated acts are also prepared. Copies of Finance Acts and consolidated acts are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many parliamentary draftsmen are employed on the Tax Law Rewrite Project; how many are on secondment from other Government departments; and what the standard period of secondment is. [31626]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are currently six parliamentary draftsmen on secondment to the Tax Law Rewrite Project. The usual period of secondment is around two years. There are currently no draftsmen on secondment to the project from other Government Departments.
  511W
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are employed in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel; on average how many are employed to deal with tax matters; and how many are trained in the Tax Rewrite Project. [31623]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I understand that there are 43 draftsmen employed in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and 21 administrative staff. Draftsmen are trained to be able to work on Bills covering any area, not specifically tax matters. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has a total of 10 draftsmen with experience of working for the Tax Law Rewrite Project.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have for(a) simplifying tax law and (b) reducing the volume of tax law. [31627]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Government keep the whole tax system under review, acting where possible to change tax rules to minimise burdens on business while still meeting the Government's objectives for a fair and efficient tax system. We are currently consulting on a number of measures to simplify and modernise the tax system.

  (b) Simply focusing on the volume of legislation is misguided—the length of legislation is not directly related to complexity. Where we introduce new regulations we offer business and individuals practical help and support and have already introduced a substantial package of measures to help businesses, particularly small businesses, deal with Government.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what time scale was originally set for the Tax Law Rewrite Project; and if this time scale will be met. [31622]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The original estimate was that it would take about five years to rewrite the main primary legislation on direct tax. However, as the work of the project progressed, it became clear that it would take longer to do the job to the necessary standard, and there is general agreement that it is more important for the work to be done properly rather than quickly.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was paid to the Treasury in inheritance tax in actual terms in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement on inheritance tax and plans he has for reform. [30755]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The yield from inheritance tax in the year 2000–01 was £2.2 billion. As to the future of the tax, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

  Tax Credits (Fraud)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown of the type of sentences imposed on persons convicted of working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit fraud. [25023]

  Dawn Primarolo
  From the introduction of tax credits in October 1999 up until 31 December 2001, 28 people have been prosecuted for making incorrect applications for working families tax credit. The table lists the type and number of different sentences imposed on those people. Some prosecutions involved people having more 512W
  than one sentence imposed upon them. To date, no prosecutions have been brought against anyone applying for disabled person's tax credit.

  Type of sentence imposed

  Number of sentences imposed

  Fines

  12

  Conditional discharge

  7

  Community Service

  6

  Rehabilitation Order

  1

  Community Punishment Orders

  1

  Trial Continues

  2

  In custody awaiting sentence

  1

  Custodial Sentence

  7

  Total

  37

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many prosecutions of working families tax credit and disabled persons tax credit fraud have led to(a) summary trial and (b) trial on indictment in each year since the WFTC and DPTC commenced. [25021]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table shows the number of working families tax credit (WFTC) prosecutions since its introduction in October 1999. To date, there have not been any prosecutions for disabled person's tax credit. Of the 28 WFTC prosecutions heard up to 31 December 2001, 26 were summary prosecutions and two were trials on indictment. Both trials on indictment were heard in 2001.

  Period

  Number of Period prosecutions (WFTC)

  October 1999 to March 2000

  0

  April 2000 to March 2001

  12

  April 2001 to December 2001

  16

  Benefits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households are in receipt of housing benefit or working families tax credit; and what the estimated annual saving to the Exchequer in payment of housing benefit and WFTC would be from a 1 per cent. cut in the basic rate of tax. [26216]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that at May 2000 there were about five million recipients of housing benefit (HB) or working families tax credit (WFTC) in the United Kingdom.

  It is estimated that, in a full year, a 1 per cent. cut in the basic rate of income tax lead to a direct reduction of about £40 million in expenditure on HB and WFTC.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the gross receipts to the Treasury were of the windfall tax levied on Railtrack in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [27653]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 15 January 2002]: As provided for under Exemption 15 (Statutory and other restrictions) of the Code of Practice on Access

  513W
  to Government Information, the Inland Revenue does not disclose the tax paid by an individual or corporate taxpayer.

  Equitable Life
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what timetable is envisaged for the completion and publication of the Penrose investigation into the origins of the problems surrounding Equitable Life. [31813]

  Ruth Kelly
  The timetable for the completion of the Penrose inquiry is a matter for Lord Penrose. The scope of the inquiry is broad and there is a large amount of evidence to gather and consider.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for North Thanet on 7 January concerning the right to buy tobacco and alcohol abroad in the EU; what response his Department has made to the letter of formal notice sent by the EU Commission to the Government of the United Kingdom commencing infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the relevant EU directive; and if he will place a copy of that response in the Library. [31882]

  Mr. Boateng
  I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 30 January.

  Community Sport
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to announce the conclusion of the consultation Promoting Sport in the Community'; and if he will make a statement. [31168]

  Mr. Boateng
  Responses to the 'Promoting Sport in the Community' consultation document have been requested by 1 February 2002. Decisions will be made as part of the normal Budget process.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received supporting the option of a separate package of Inland Revenue tax relief for community amateur sports clubs; and if he will make a statement. [31167]

  Mr. Boateng
  A number of responses to the "Promoting Sport in the Community" consultation document have been received and consultation continues until 1 February 2002.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the consultation document "Promoting Sport in the Community". [31171]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Treasury is in regular dialogue with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to change the tax position of community amateur sports clubs; and if he will make a statement. [31170]
  514W
  Mr. Boateng
  A consultation document "Promoting Sport in the Community" was launched on 30 November 2001. It seeks views on the best way to support community amateur sports clubs that make a positive contribution to their local communities.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the financial support from Government to community amateur sports clubs in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; what he estimates it will be in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [31169]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government recognise the positive contribution community amateur sports clubs (CASCs) make to their local communities. The consultation document "Promoting Sport in the Community" seeks views from interested parties before finalising decisions on the best way to support CASCs. Copies of the consultation document can be found in the House Library.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of staffing levels of customs officials at major airports, with particular reference to cases where immigration staff report suspected drug trafficking. [31148]

  Mr. Boateng
  Major airports are resourced by Customs in line with identified risks. Referrals from immigration are always acted upon by Customs, where there are sufficient grounds.

  Government Assets
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of assets that have been sold by(a) Customs and Excise, (b) the Inland Revenue and (c) National Savings in each year since 1998; and if he will make a statement. [31150]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The National Asset Register (July 2001, Cm 5318) provides a list of all significant asset disposals by central Government Departments and their sponsored bodies between April 1997 and March 2000.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the basis is for the statement in paragraph 6.23 of Cm 5318 that the National Asset Register for the first time provides a complete list of the main assets held by central Government and their value; and if he will make a statement. [31184]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Reality—this is the first time a comprehensive list with asset values has been published.

  Rent Rebate Subsidy Expenditure (Scotland)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what formula is in place to vary the level of the Scottish Consolidated Fund to account for additional housing benefit costs as a result of disproportionate variances in rent levels by local authorities; what adjustments have been made to the Scottish Consolidated Fund and the Scottish Block Grant in each of the past five years in respect of this formula; what discussions have taken place with the Scottish Executive on this matter; and what was the outcome of these discussions. [31497]
  515W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Statement of Funding Policy, published by the Treasury in July 2000, states that if in Scotland the actual cost of rent rebate subsidy expenditure changes at a disproportionate rate relative to changes in England, then appropriate balancing adjustments are made to the Scottish departmental expenditure limit. Details of such adjustments will be given in announcements of changes to the Scottish DEL made from time to time by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Discussions are taking place between the Treasury and the Scottish Executive on this issue.

  Parliamentary Questions (PFI)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many written parliamentary questions regarding private finance initiatives have been tabled since 1 January 2000; and in answer to how many of these information has not been provided on the ground of commercial confidentiality. [31854]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury Ministers have answered 27 parliamentary questions relating to private finance initiative in the period concerned. In no case was information withheld on the ground of commercial confidentiality.

  Customs Fraud
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to paragraph 21 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Regina v. Patel Villiers, Sewell, Hutchinson and Ford, Cases 2000 02566, 2000 02589, 2000 02591, 2001 02259 and 2001 03772, for what reason Customs and Excise did not take action earlier to protect public revenue. [31532]

  Mr. Boateng
  A key approach of the Customs National Investigation Service (NIS) to tackling diversion frauds between 1995 and 1998 was to allow fraudsters to move goods from excise warehouses while under observation. When enough evidence was obtained the perpetrators would be arrested. However, an unavoidable consequence of this investigative method was that unrecoverable arrears of duty could build up during the course of the investigation.

  In their report on "Losses to the Revenue from Frauds on Alcohol Duty", published on 19 July 2001, NAO noted that
  "Even with the benefit of hindsight, it is difficult to determine whether a policy of greater disruption of alcohol diversion frauds between 1995 and 1998 would have led to a lower level of revenue loss".

  The handling of alcohol duty loss cases has been the subject of an independent investigation, commissioned by the Paymaster General. This was headed by John Rogues, an ex senior partner of Deloitte and Touche. The report contained 65 recommendations to improve controls and the way that fraud is tackled in Customs. Mr. Rogues concluded that there are circumstances where it is constructive and useful to observe the fraudulent movement of goods.
  516W
  In some cases the NIS conducted retrospective investigations ie after the fraud had been stopped. The Villiers case was a retrospective investigation

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in Regina v. Patel, Villiers, Sewell, Hutchinson and Ford, if it is the intention of HM Customs and Excise prosecutors to seek a retrial of the appellants; what the policy of HM Customs and Excise is on the disclosure of evidence; what procedures are in place to discipline those officers who failed to disclose evidence; what the total cost to public funds to date of the criminal proceedings is; and if he will make a statement. [31530]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is the intention of HM Customs and Excise to seek a retrial of the appellants in the case of Villiers and others. The Villiers judgment spoke of a failure on the part of the Crown to disclose material (para 54 of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Regina v. Patel, Villiers, Sewell, Hutchinson and Ford) as opposed to any failings on the part of individual officers. There is no suggestion in the judgment that individual officers wrongly withheld material from prosecution lawyers or prosecution Counsel.

  The total cost incurred by the Solicitor's Office of HM Customs and Excise (including the costs of the prosecution lawyers involved, prosecution Counsel and general office costs) is estimated to be £450,000. It is not known what costs have been incurred by the defence teams or the courts.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures he has in place to ensure that HM Customs and Excise register and handle informants in accordance with Government guidelines. [31565]

  Mr. Boateng
  Informants are dealt with by specifically trained officers and HM Customs and Excise are subject to the same legislation and guidelines as police forces in their handling informants.

  In addition, reviews of the way the Department carries out these activities are closely monitored by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners, National Audit Office and the Department's own internal audit division.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to paragraph 6, part (2) of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in Regina 24 v. Patel, Villiers, Sewell, Hutchinson and Ford, what measures he took to monitor the activities of HM Customs and Excise officers and prosecutors in relation to London City Bond; on what date he was first informed that Customs and Excise had been involved in the losses incurred by London City Bond; and how much public funds were lost. [31528]

  Mr. Boateng
  In line with standing arrangements between the solicitor's office of HM Customs and Excise and the Attorney-General, a monthly schedule of `sensitive' cases was generated within the solicitor's office and sent to the Attorney General's office on 14 March 2001. A number of cases which involved London City Bond were included as entries in this schedule. The Attorney-General wrote to the solicitor's office on 5 April 2001 asking for fuller details of these cases. A comprehensive note was prepared and sent to
  517W
  the Attorney-General on 27 April 2001. Since then, the Solicitor's Office has continued to keep the Attorney-General abreast of current developments in these cases by way of updates to the aforementioned monthly schedule.

  The Chancellor was first informed of the issues resulting from excise diversion fraud in June 2000. The Paymaster General announced an independent inquiry later that month and the full details of the losses were then published in July 2001 in the Rogues report.

  HM Customs and Excise Trust Statement for 1999–2000, published in February 2001, was certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and provided details of the estimated revenue losses due to excise diversion fraud of £668 million with further losses of £216 million involving goods diverted onto overseas markets where duty would have been due. Notes 9 and 10 to the Trust Statement, which was published with Customs annual report 1999–2000 (CM 5064), gave further details.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many National Investigation Service investigations into fraudulent consignments of goods have been carried out in the last 10 years; how many such investigations are in progress; and what estimate has been made of the amount of excise duty lost to HM Customs and Excise as a result of decisions not to prosecute informers during investigations in each case. [31533]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures for the last 10 years are not available. Outward diversion fraud resulted from Single Market changes, which were only introduced from 1 January 1993. Customs investigated around 130 cases of outward diversion fraud between 1994 and 1998. After 1998 as a result of enhanced controls and the subsequent introduction of a strategic approach to countering fraud, patterns of fraud changed. It would not be in the public interest to reveal how many investigations into this type of fraud are in progress as this would assist fraudsters in evaluating the risk of perpetrating such frauds.

  It is not the policy of Customs to either confirm or deny the involvement of an informant in any case.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the(a) awarding and (b)level of financial inducements to potential informants to Customs and Excise. [31566]

  Mr. Boateng
  Section 165 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, provides that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may, at their discretion, pay rewards in respect of any service which appears to merit it. It is not Customs' policy to disclose information about the amounts paid to informants on the grounds that this could undermine the effectiveness of law enforcement.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to paragraph 6, part (2) of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in Regina v. Patel, Villiers, Sewell, Hutchinson and Ford, what the policy is of HM Customs and Excise with regard to permitting warehouse owners to allow goods to leave without the payment of duty; and if he will define the reference by HM Customs and Excise in the judgment to bigger fry. [31531]
  518W
  Mr. Boateng
  A key approach of the Customs National Investigation Service (NIS) to tackling diversion frauds between 1995 and 1998 was to allow fraudsters to move goods from excise warehouses while under observation. When enough evidence was obtained the perpetrators would be arrested. The co-operation of warehousekeepers with Customs' investigators was an essential part in this approach. As they could have become liable for duty on these consignments, some of these warehousekeepers were given either explicit or implicit indemnities against liability for the duty evaded. In some cases the NIS conducted retrospective investigations, ie after the fraud had been stopped. The Villiers case was a retrospective investigation.

  This investigative approach was examined by John Rogues in his report on the Collection of Excise Duties in HM Customs and Excise. Mr. Rogues concluded that there are circumstances where it is constructive and useful to observe the fraudulent movement of goods but made a three part recommendation on the subject of indemnities (Recommendation 30). This was accepted by Customs. Clearly defined authority levels for risking revenue were introduced in November 2000. A copy of the Rogues report which includes the Government's response has been laid in the parliamentary Library.

  Hauliers played a key role in a number of diversion frauds. In some cases the hauliers were the principals behind the fraud, in others they played a lesser though still essential role. Where the haulier was not the principal, Customs would attempt to identify the principals in order to put as complete a case as possible before the courts. It is ultimately for the courts to determine, on the evidence presented, the respective roles of the defendants.

  Taxpayer Confidentiality
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the guidelines and rules regarding the confidentiality of individuals' tax returns and tax affairs. [31222]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The position under successive Governments has been that the law on taxpayer confidentiality prevents the Inland Revenue from disclosing any information relating to the tax affairs of an individual taxpayer except where that disclosure is permitted by law or where the individual involved has consented to disclosure.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what access(a) civil servants outside the Inland Revenue and (b) Ministers have to the details of the tax affairs of individual citizens. [31451]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The position under successive Governments has been that the law on taxpayer confidentiality prevents the Inland Revenue from disclosing any information relating to the tax affairs of an individual taxpayer except where that disclosure is permitted by law or where the individual involved has consented to disclosure. These rules apply to civil servants outside the Inland Revenue and Ministers in the same way as to other third parties.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) people resident and (b) businesses users operating in Gibraltar have UK tax liabilities. [31931]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The requested information is not available.

  Footballers
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the criteria used to determine whether proceeds from footballers' testimonial events are regarded as taxable income; and if he will extend the criteria to increase the tax liability on this revenue for full-time professional footballers. [31852]

  Dawn Primarolo
  If proceeds from a testimonial match are connected with the termination of a footballers' employment they are taxable if they exceed a £30,000 exemption limit.

  And if a footballer becomes entitled to a testimonial after a specific period of service to a club, or under an agreement made with the club on signing, the proceeds may be taxable in full as income from his employment.

  But if no such entitlement exists and a testimonial match is organised by a testimonial committee on the individual's behalf, rather than by the employer, the proceeds do not come from his employment, but from individuals marking their esteem for the individual's personal qualities or general contributions to the game. These payments are of a personal nature and are not therefore taxable in the same way that other gifts are not taxable.

  We have no current plans to change the tax treatment of footballers' testimonial payments. However, we keep all aspects of the tax system, including this one, under regular review.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 770W, on pension credit, (1) how many representations he has received (a) supporting and (b) opposing the marginal tax rate in the pension credit; [32072]

  (2) how many representations he has received (a) supporting and (b)opposing the pension credit savings limit. [32071]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer to the reply I gave on 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 770W, and have nothing further to add.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Service
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the Prison Service's corporate plan for 2002–03 to 2004–05 and business plan and key performance indicators for 2002–03. [32769]
  520W
  Beverley Hughes
  The Prison Service corporate plan for 2002–03 to 2004–05 and business plan for 2002–03, which includes the key performance indicators agreed so far, has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Terrorism Act 2000
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will lay before Parliament a report on the working of the Terrorism Act 2000. [32770]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am pleased to say that Lord Carlile of Berriew QC has completed the report on part VII of the Act, which relates solely to Northern Ireland, which will be laid before Parliament today. A full report will he published later this year.

  Lewes Prison (Drug Testing)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) of 10 January 2002,Official Report, column 1008–12W, if he will make a statement on the percentage of prisoners tested positive in random mandatory drug tests at HMP Lewes. [28707]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: The rate of positive random mandatory drug tests (MDT) at Lewes prison for each of the months given in the answer of 10 January 2002 is shown in the table:

  2001

  Average population

  Rate of positive MDT (%)

  January

  411

  27.3

  February

  414

  18.1

  March

  445

  10.0

  April

  446

  30.4

  May

  435

  40.0

  June

  443

  36.4

  July

  471

  37.5

  August

  478

  30.0

  September

  471

  25.0

  October

  468

  24.0

  November

  467

  32.0

  December

  474

  33.3

  MDT data from September 2001 are provisional and subject to validation.

  Court Proceedings
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) criminal prosecutions, (b) either-way case prosecutions, (c) summary only prosecutions and (d) indictment only prosecutions there were in each of the last 10 years. [29646]

  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 in each of the years 1991 to 2000 in England and Wales.

  Statistics for 2001 are not yet available.
  521W

  Defendants proceeded against for various of offences England and Wales,1991 to 2000

  Defendants proceeded against for:

  Year

  Total defendants proceeded against

  Triable either way offences

  Summary offences

  Indictable only offences

  1991

  1,955,917

  462,362

  1,466,860

  26,695

  1992

  2,029,910

  462,000

  1,539,633

  28,277

  1993

  1,956,271

  449,632

  1,477,463

  29,176

  1994

  1,947,165

  466,772

  1,449,839

  30,554

  1995

  1,836,307

  434,091

  1,372,786

  29,430

  1996

  1,919,494

  432,558

  1,454,817

  32,119

  1997

  1,855,333

  454,432

  1,368,632

  32,269

  1998

  1,951,915

  477,465

  1,441,418

  33,032

  1999

  1,881,765

  479,917

  1,369,072

  32,776

  2000

  1,904,677

  457,203

  1,412,855

  34,619

  Number and percentage1 of defendants convicted for the various categories of offences, England and Wales, 1996 to 2000

  Number

  Percentage

  1996

  Defendants convicted at the Crown court for indictable only offences

  11,438

  73

  Defendants convicted at the Crown court for triable either-way offences

  55,288

  81

  Defendants convicted at magistrates courts for triable either-way offences

  231,896

  54

  Defendants convicted at magistrates courts for summary offences

  1,135,088

  78

  Total defendants convicted2

  1,433,710

  75

  1997

  Defendants convicted at the Crown court for indictable only offences

  11,456

  73

  Defendants convicted at the Crown court for triable either-way offences

  59,425

  81

  Defendants convicted at magistrates courts for triable either-way offences

  247,351

  54

  Defendants convicted at magistrates courts for summary offences

  1,063,308

  78

  Total defendants convicted2

  1,381,540

  74

  1998

  Defendants convicted at the Crown court for indictable only offences

  11,642

  70

  Defendants convicted at the Crown court for triable either-way offences

  47,814

  77

  Defendants convicted at magistrates courts for triable either-way offences

  280,524

  59

  Defendants convicted at magistrates courts for summary offences

  1,125,505

  78

  Total defendants convicted2

  1,465,485

  75

  1999

  Defendants convicted at the Crown court for indictable only offences

  11,561

  69

  Defendants convicted at the Crown court for triable either-way offences

  43,300

  75

  Defendants convicted at magistrates courts for triable either-way offences

  285,524

  59

  Defendants convicted at magistrates courts for summary offences

  1,064,111

  78

  Total defendants convicted2

  1,404,4

  75

  2000

  Defendants convicted at the Crown court for indictable only offences

  11,312

  67

  Defendants convicted at the Crown court for triable either-way offences

  42,578

  74

  Defendants convicted at magistrates courts for triable either-way offences

  269,867

  59

  Defendants convicted at magistrates courts for summary offences

  1,095,680

  78

  Total defendants convicted2

  1,419,437

  75

  1 Percentage of those proceeded against at magistrates courts or of those for trial at the Crown court.

  2 Excludes juveniles convicted of indictable offences at magistrates courts and defendants convicted of summary offences at the Crown court.

  Note:

  Statistics for 2001 are not yet available.

  Either-way Offences
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the 20 most common triable either-way offences in the past year; and if he will make a statement. [29645]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The following list provides the twenty most common triable either-way offences based on the number of defendants proceeded against in England and Wales in 2000 (statistics for 2001 are not yet available) extracted from the Home Office Court

  Convictions
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of criminal cases in(a) Crown court on indictment, (b) Crown court either-way case, (c) magistrates court either-way case, (d) magistrates court summary only and (e) in total, resulted in a conviction in the last five years for which figures are available. [29643]

  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 in each of the years 1996 to 2000 in England and Wales.

  Proceedings Database. They relate to the principal offence for which a person was proceeded against, if dealt with for more than one offence at the same time.

  Triable either-way offence

  Theft from shops and stalls

  Absconding by person released on bail

  Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

  Other theft (not separately classified)

  Possession of cannabis

  Non-aggravated burglary in a dwelling

  Non-aggravated burglary other than in a dwelling

  523W

  Affray

  Receiving stolen goods

  Obtaining property by deception

  Criminal damage not endangering life

  Theft from the person of another

  Possession of offensive weapon without lawful authority reasonable excuse

  Wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm

  Theft from motor vehicle

  Dangerous driving

  Possession of heroin

  Aggravated vehicle taking (excluding death)

  Undertaking or assisting in the retention, removal, disposal or realisation of stolen goods, or arranging to do so

  Violent disorder.

  Sex Offences
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to take action to make it an offence for an adult to deceive minors into exposing themselves; and if he will make a statement. [29639]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  This whole area is one which we are looking at very carefully as part of our consideration of the recommendations for new sexual offences proposed in "Setting the Boundaries", the report of the Sex Offences Review. The review proposed a new offence of adult sexual abuse of a child, including"inciting or compelling a child to carry out a sexual act".

  We are currently considering the large number of responses to the public consultation process on the Review document.

  We view with serious concern those who seek to use children for their own gratification and tackling this abhorrent behaviour is a top priority for this Government. We will ensure any gap is filled.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish proposals for sex offence law reform; and if he will make a statement. [29642]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are currently considering how to change existing sex offences in light of the recommendations made to Government in "Setting the Boundaries" and the more than 700 responses that were received during the consultation period. We will be bringing forward legislation when parliamentary time allows and will publish a summary of our proposals in the Library as soon as possible.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about plans for the Holocaust Memorial Day 2002. [30283]

  Angela Eagle
  A national event was held in Manchester on the evening of Sunday 27 January attended by a wide audience including senior public figures, Holocaust survivors, community representatives and students.
  524W
  A wide range of activities took place around the country organised by local authorities and community groups. They were encouraged to put details of their activities on the dedicated website www.holocaustmemorialday.gov.uk.

  Many schools used the new Holocaust education resource pack in the week leading up to Holocaust Memorial Day to mark the day in appropriate ways.

  Media coverage of the day and the related events was extensive and mainly positive.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how local authorities are marking Holocaust Memorial Day. [30862]

  Angela Eagle
  A wide range of activities took place around the country organised by local authorities and community groups. They were encouraged to put details of their activities on the dedicated website www.holocaustmemorialday.gov.uk. There were over 160 known events, involving at least 80 local authorities.

  Departmental Expenditure (Publications)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in each of the last four years. [30089]

  Angela Eagle
  The cost of newspapers, magazines and periodicals purchased centrally was as follows:

  £

  1998–99

  161,108

  1999–2000

  187,685

  2000–01

  151,865

  2001–02

  138,527

  Estimates of purchases within individual business units of the Home Office are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Suicides (Young Offenders)
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicides were attempted in each young offenders institution in each year since 1996. [29477]

  Beverley Hughes
  Available data are shown in the table. Figures are collected in respect of self-harm (which covers all acts of self-injury, however serious) and self-inflicted deaths: there is no separate definition of "attempted suicide". Figures in respect of self-injury from 1998 and in respect of self-inflicted deaths for the entire period are age related rather than location based because many young offenders are not located in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs). The definition of self-harm and recording practices are under review.

  Self-harm incidents recorded in YOI establishments

  Number

  1996

  99

  1997

  114

  525W

  Self-harm incidents reported in establishments in England and Wales by age category between 1 January 1998 and 30 November 2001

  Year

  Juveniles (15–17)

  Young Offenders (18–21)

  Total

  1998

  252

  746

  998

  1999

  205

  825

  1,030

  2000

  288

  1,069

  1,357

  20011

  366

  1,201

  1,567

  Total

  1,111

  3,841

  4,952

  1 Year 2001 figures up to 30 November 2001

  Self-inflicted deaths

  Juveniles (15–17)

  Young Offenders (18–21)

  Total

  1996

  1

  11

  12

  1997

  0

  9

  9

  1998

  3

  11

  14

  1999

  1

  13

  14

  2000

  3

  13

  16

  2001

  3

  10

  13

  Totals

  11

  67

  78

  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the number of attempted suicides in young offenders' institutions. [29465]

  Beverley Hughes
  A proactive strategy is in place to reduce suicide and self-harm in prison and make prisons safer for all who live and work there. The strategy target areas of greatest risk, recognising that prisoners under 21 years of age are especially vulnerable, whether or not located in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs). Feltham YOI and Eastwood Park, which holds young women offenders, are among five prisons selected as pilot sites for the installation of safer cells, first night support centres, crisis suites and cells that enable staff to monitor at risk prisoners. Other initiatives, which focus on the early period in custody, include physical improvements to reception and induction areas and removal of ligature points.

  The Prison Service is bidding for funds to provide an extra 860 safer cells in 16 YOIs. The under 18 age group will additionally benefit from the Prison Service's joint working with the Youth Justice Board, which is investing £1 million this financial year on safer cells. Work is also in hand on developing an effective cell sharing assessment tool; developing peer and outside support schemes suitable for young people; reducing violence and bullying; and improving identification and assessment of at risk young people and their care plans.

  Immigration
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average waiting time has been in the last 12 months for which figures are available for decisions to be made on immigration applications from(a) work permit holders, (b) people with UK ancestry, (c) EEA nationals and their families, (d) spouses, (e) fianc?s and fianc?es and (f) asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [30994]
  526W
  Angela Eagle
  The table provides the information requested on asylum seekers for the period of October 2000 to September 2001, inclusive. The average decision times have been calculated using all initial decisions made for which data are available, including a minimal number of cases decided under the backlog criteria, as well as new cases. These data are subject to revision following quality checking.

  Average time to initial decision1,2, initial decisions made October 2000 to September 2001

  Months3,4,5

  October 2000 to September 2001

  14

  1 The average length of time (in months) is calculated from date application is lodged to the date of initial decision, and relates to the month in which the decisions were made.

  2 Figures are estimates based on cases for which information is recorded.

  3 Based on data from A-CID (Asylum Cases Information Database).

  4 Excluding dependants.

  5 Provisional figures.

  We do not routinely publish processing times for individual types of general and settlement applications. We aim to decide all straightforward applications within three weeks, although at present it is taking up to eight weeks. This is due to the exceptionally high number of applications received in 2001, especially in recent months, and process changes which are being introduced to improve our longer term performance. We are working to reduce this to three weeks as soon as possible.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what target waiting times for immigration applications are used in respect of(a) work permit holders, (b) people with UK ancestry, (c) EEA nationals and their spouses, (d) fiancés and fiance és, (e) spouses and (f) asylum seekers; what proportion of cases have met the waiting time targets in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [30997]

  Angela Eagle
  We aim to decide 70 per cent. of all new general and settlement application within three weeks, and met this for the first half of 2001. We do not generally prioritise specific categories of application other than for European Economic Area (EEA) nationals where, under European Community (EC) legislation, we have to deal with any application for a residence permit within six months. During 2001 such cases were on average dealt within three-four months. Regrettably at present it is taking up to eight weeks to decide new straightforward applications due to the exceptionally high number of new applications received during 2001, especially in recent months; and process changes that are being introduced to improve our longer term performance. We are working to reduce this timescale to three weeks or less as soon as possible.

  The asylum decision target for 2001–02 is to make 60 per cent. of initial decisions in new substantive cases within two months of the date of application. We intend to publish provisional figures indicating progress over the first half of the year with the quarterly asylum statistics bulletin on 28 February 2002.

  Women Prisoners (Wales)
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 786W, on women prisoners, (a) for what crimes the 169 female prisoners were committed to prison in Wales, (b) how many had reoffended, (c) in what prisons they were placed and (d) how many spoke Welsh as their first language. [30847]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table of the 169 women committed by courts in Wales and who were in the prison population on 30 November 2001, shows a breakdown by(a) offence and (b) establishment. Data on whether or not these women have been imprisoned after a reconviction are collected, but would take a few weeks to process.I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend with the information. Data on the languages spoken by prisoners are not collected centrally, and so cannot be provided.

  Females committed in Wales to prison by offence type and establishment

  Number committed

  Offence type

  Drug offences

  32

  Other thefts

  22

  Wounding

  21

  Robbery

  17

  Burglary

  14

  Arson

  9

  Handling stolen goods

  7

  Murder

  6

  Offence not recorded

  6

  Manslaughter

  5

  Other motoring offences

  5

  Frauds

  5

  Other criminal offences

  4

  Assaults

  4

  Cruelty to children

  4

  Other homicide or attempted homicide

  2

  Threat/disorderly behaviour

  1

  Criminal damage

  1

  In charge or driving under the influence of drink or drugs

  1

  Perjury/libel/perverting the course of justice

  1

  Affray

  1

  Other offences of violence against the person

  1

  Total

  169

  Establishment

  Foston Hall

  11

  Durham

  3

  Eastwood Park

  66

  Brickhill

  2

  Winchester

  2

  Bullwood Hall

  4

  Highpoint

  14

  Styal

  28

  Send

  2

  Drake Hall

  17

  Down view

  4

  East Sutton Park

  1

  Morton Hall

  3

  Low Newton

  2

  New Hall

  7

  Askham Grange

  2

  Cookham Wood

  1

  Total

  169

  Work Permits (Shortage Occupations)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants, broken down by category, have been admitted under the fast track scheme for shortage occupations in information technology since 1 October 1999. [30998]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of work permits approved under the shortage occupation category for information technology occupations since 21 January 2000 is 20,292. This is the date that information technology occupations were first included on the work permit shortage occupation list.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis Oracle database administration was included on the list of shortage occupations for the purposes of the fast track work permit scheme. [30999]

  Angela Eagle
  Oracle database administrator was included on the work permit shortage occupation list following consultation with representatives from the information technology communications and electronics sector and other Government Departments.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ensure that the employment market data used to inform the fast track work permit scheme for shortage occupations is(a) accurate and (b) up to date. [31000]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Department consults regularly on relevant and current labour market issues with other Government Departments and representatives from those sectors of industry that are included on the work permit shortage occupation list.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what data were used to compile the list of shortage occupations in information technology for the purposes of the fast track work permit system. [31001]

  Angela Eagle
  Regular consultation with a panel of representatives from the information technology communications and electronics sector and other Government Departments provides up-to-date information on the information technology labour market. This allows the Department to make informed decisions about the compilation of the work permit shortage occupation list.

  Keith Hellawell
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the responsibilities and salary of Mr. Keith Hellawell. [16890]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Mr. Hellawell has been engaged to work part-time, initially to support the work being undertaken to assist the European Union (EU) applicant countries prepare the necessary drug strategies and related infrastructure to meet drug-related requirements of EU membership.

  Details of individual special adviser salaries below £90,000 are not disclosed to protect the individual.

  People Trafficking
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been
  529W
  (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted for people smuggling offences in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [29641]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The available information, from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, relating to England and Wales for the years 1996 to 2000, is shown in the table. These data cover proceedings under the

  Persons proceeded against and convicted at all courts for offences under the Immigration Act 1974 sec. 25 (1) (a), (b) and (c) England and Wales 1996 to 2000

  Offence description

  Principal statute

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20002

  Proceeded against1

  Knowingly concerned in making or carrying out arrangements for securing or facilitating the entry into the UK of anyone whom he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to be an illegal entrant

  Immigration Act 1974 sec. 25(1)(b) as added by Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 s.5

  153

  173

  193

  233

  199

  Knowingly concerned in making or carry out arrangements for securing or facilitating the entry into the UK of anyone whom he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to be an asylum claimant

  Immigration Act 1974 sec. 25(1)(c) as added by Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 s.5

  3—

  4

  4

  20

  11

  Knowingly concerned in making or carrying out arrangements for securing or facilitating the obtaining by anyone of leave to remain in the UK by means which he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to include deception

  Immigration Act 1974 sec. 25(1)(c) as added by Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 s.5

  3—

  4

  13

  11

  12

  Total

  153

  181

  210

  264

  222

  Found guilty1

  Knowingly concerned in making or carrying out arrangements for securing or facilitating the entry into the UK of anyone whom he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to be an illegal entrant

  Immigration Act 1974 sec. 25(1)(c) as added by Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 s.5

  123

  130

  115

  150

  145

  Knowingly concerned in making or carry out arrangements for securing or facilitating the entry into the UK of anyone whom he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to be an asylum claimant

  Immigration Act 1974 sec. 25(1)(c) as added by Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 s.5

  3—

  —

  3

  6

  3

  Knowingly concerned in making or carrying out arrangements for securing or facilitating the obtaining by anyone of leave to remain in the UK by means which he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to include deception

  Immigration Act 1974 sec. 25(1)(c) as added by Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 s.5

  3—

  1

  5

  6

  11

  Total

  123

  131

  123

  162

  159

  1 Figures provided are on the principal immigration offence basis

  2 Staffordshire police force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data these data are not robust at a detailed level and have been excluded from this table.

  3 Not applicable.

  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the life of the Firearms Consultative Committee. [32768]

  Mr. Denham
  The life of the Firearms Consultative Committee will be extended for a further period of two years from 1 February 2002.

  Student Visas
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average period of time taken to process a visa application from a person seeking to study in the UK was in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [31223]
  530W
  Immigration Act 1971 sec. 25(1) (a), (b) and (c) as amended by the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 Sec.5.

  Statistics for 2001 are not yet available.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already indicated his intention to increase the maximum penalty for these offences to 14 years, and a range of further measures are under consideration.

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  We do not record separate statistics on processing times for visa applications received from students. They are included in the visitors category.

  Straightforward applications from students and other visitors would normally be processed within 24 hours. During 2001 on average 94 per cent. of straightforward applications received were processed within 24 hours.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visa applications made by those hoping to study here have been turned down in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [31224]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.
  531W
  The number of student visa application refused are as follows:

  Number

  1997

  9,309

  1998

  9,654

  1999

  11,503

  2000

  20,105

  2001

  16,005

  1 The figures for 2001 are for January–March 2001. We collect these statistics only on an annual basis. Future statistics will be on a financial year basis and are due to be collected during April 2002.

  Indefinite Leave to Remain
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications from wives of United Kingdom citizens to obtain indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom have been waiting over the target time of three weeks at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [31141]

  Angela Eagle
  We aim to decide 70 per cent. of all new general and settlement cases within three weeks and met this for the first half of 2001. Information on the number of applications from wives of United Kingdom citizens for indefinite leave to remain which were not decided within this time scale is not available.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the senior appointments made by his Department to executive and advisory NDPBs in 2001 and give their(a) name, (b) previous job, (c) political affiliation, (d) sex and (e) ethnic origin. [30471]

  Mr. Leslie
  The names of women and men serving as chair and deputy chair of all non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are set out in the annual publication "Public Bodies", copies of which can be found in the Libraries of the House; other personal data are not disclosed except for ethnicity and then only in summary form.

  During 2001 only one senior appointment was made by a Cabinet Office Minister to a non-departmental public body sponsored by Cabinet Office. In February 2001, Mr. John Sheldon was appointed by the Parliamentary Secretary as deputy chair of the Civil Service Appeal Board.

  In addition, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, in his capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, made the following senior appointments:

  Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside

  Mr. Michael Cresswell JP—Chair

  Mr. E. Gordon Hubert—Chair

  Mrs. Anne Sykes JP—Chair

  Mrs. Joanne Brown JP—Chair

  Civil Defence Grants
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what increase in civil defence grants has been made following the events of 11 September. [31241]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), on 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 891W.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the visits he has made abroad on behalf of Her Majesty's Government since August 2001; what the objective of each visit was; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of each trip. [32042]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on 14 January 2002,Official Report, column 36W.

  People's Panel
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what decision has been made with regard to the People's Panel following the expiry of the contract with MORI. [32895]

  Mr. Leslie
  We believe that the People's Panel has been influential in demonstrating the value of establishing the views of citizens and the users of public services in policy-making and service delivery.

  Since the People's Panel was set up in 1998, Government Departments and agencies have improved greatly in their efforts to consult with their customers, and to assess satisfaction with the services they provide.

  Therefore, we have taken the decision that there is no longer a need for the Cabinet Office to carry out this function centrally, when it can be done more effectively by Departments, agencies and local services as part of their mainstream policy development and service delivery.

  Social Exclusion
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he intends to take to enhance the delivery of Government measures to tackle social exclusion in deprived and low-income areas; and if he will make a statement. [31255]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Prime Minister launched "A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal National Strategy Action Plan" in January 2001. The national strategy is a long-term initiative which aims to deliver neighbourhood renewal—the process of delivering real change to England's most deprived neighbourhoods. The Government's vision is reflected in their long-term goal: to narrow the gap between deprived neighbourhoods and the rest, so that within 10 to 20 years, no-one should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live. It aims to deliver this by enhancing the delivery of economic prosperity, safe communities, high quality schools, decent housing, and better health to the poorest parts of the country.
  533W
  The national strategy requires a change in the way we approach main Government programmes to ensure they focus on deprived areas. The strategy is being spearheaded by the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, a cross-cutting unit based in DTLR and staffed by officials from across Whitehall and the public sector, with secondees from the private and voluntary sectors.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 January 2002,Official Report, columns 87–89W, on ministerial visits, what the size of his entourage was on each of the visits; if transport was provided by (a) the RAF and (b) a commercial carrier; and where applicable, what the chartering costs were. [31703]

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is included in the detailed list of Cabinet Ministers' visits overseas and information on expenditure by all Ministers on travel overseas. The list for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the(a) cost and (b) effectiveness of the Department's advertising campaign on pension awareness. [31839]

  Mr. McCartney
  The pensions education campaign promotes the Government's aim to combat poverty and promote security and independence in retirement for future pensioners. The campaign encourages future pensioners to save for their retirement where they can afford to, and provides impartial information on their pension options to help them make informed decisions.

  Changing attitudes towards planning for retirement is not a straightforward task and will take time. We are planning to continue pensions education activity.

  However, results so far are encouraging. The campaign has provoked almost 900,000 responses and almost 1.2 million information guides have been sent out. Awareness of the campaign is increasing.

  The cost for the campaign from April 2000 to December 2001 is approximately £9.3 million. This cost includes campaign development; press, cinema and TV advertising; research and evaluation; the costs of running our information order line; website development; printing leaflets and other campaign materials.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the implied annual uplift is in gross state retirement pensions for qualifying deferment of payment(a) under present arrangements and (b) under future planned modifications of the system; what current annuity rates are; and if he will make a statement. [31305]
  534W
  Mr. McCartney
  Entitlement to Retirement Pension arises when a person attains pensionable age but to be entitled they have to make a claim. They can put off claiming their pension to earn increments. When they claim, each part of the pension is increased by about 7.5 per cent. for each full year of deferral.

  Currently the maximum period for deferral is five years but from April 2010 there will be no time limit and the incremental rate will increase to about 10.4 per cent. for each full year.

  Annuity rates vary according to the individual's circumstances and are not directly comparable to the increment rates for state pension purposes.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what actions he is taking to improve access to financial advice tailored to the needs of individuals contemplating taking out stakeholder pensions. [31840]

  Mr. McCartney
  Stakeholder pensions are a straightforward, good value, flexible product which need to adhere to certain minimum standards. These minimum standards mean that for many people less advice is necessary than that needed for personal pensions. For example the minimum standards will mean all stakeholder schemes should offer a good basic deal, and the simplification of tax rules means a single tax regime for all defined contribution pension schemes.

  As a part of the minimum standards, all stakeholder pension scheme providers are required to provide, within the charge limit, information about the scheme and additional explanatory material. This will help individuals to decide whether a stakeholder scheme would be a good option for them.

  We recognise that some people will need further advice. The Financial Services Authority (FSA), which regulates promotion and advice, has produced 'decision trees' to help individuals work through key questions on whether or not to join a stakeholder scheme, without necessarily requiring full individual advice. It has issued a consultation paper this month explaining how it proposes to keep them accurate and up-to-date.

  In some cases there may be a need for individual-specific advice. Scheme providers may give this advice within the charge. It is also open to scheme providers to charge an additional fee for individual advice, or for individuals to seek advice, for a charge, from an independent financial adviser.

  Employer Direct
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 43W, on call centre services, what the expected cost is of the Employer Direct modernisation programme in years (a) six, (b) seven and (c) eight of the eight year contract. [30128]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Employer Direct is part of the overall investment in modernisation and service improvement by the employment service. The different elements are all interdependent and it is not therefore possible to separate the cost of Employer Direct. The modernisation programme is being delivered under an eight-year contract costing £816 million in total and
  535W
  £346 million over years six, seven and eight of the contract. These costs include the existing services already provided to the employment service by the contractor.

  StepUp Programme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the StepUp Programme announced on 28 November 2001; what progress it has made; and what plans there are to extend it to the whole of the United Kingdom. [29842]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: StepUp, which will be launched in April, builds on the IINew Deals by providing transitional jobs to act as a stepping stone for long-term unemployed people moving from benefits into work.

  Officials are currently working on the detail of the pilots in readiness for the April launch. The first six StepUp pilots will start in April in parts of Cardiff, East Ayrshire, Lambeth, Oldham, Sheffield and Sunderland. A further 14 pilots, including one in Coventry, South, will start throughout the rest of the year. We will thoroughly evaluate the pilots before any decision is taken about a national roll-out of StepUp.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent measures he has taken to increase opportunities for disabled persons seeking employment. [28923]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have introduced a range of measures to help people with disabilities secure work where they are ready and able to do so.

  Our new deal for disabled people pilots helped over 8,200 disabled people into work. Building on that success we now have in place a national network of job brokers.

  We are making work possible for people with disabilities by removing benefit barriers and allowing people to take part in work trials and work placements. We are making work pay through the disabled person's tax credit and the national minimum wage.

  Jobcentre Plus offers disabled people making new or repeat claims to benefit work-focused meetings with a personal adviser so as to ensure they are aware of the help and opportunities available to them.

  From autumn this year we are introducing the job retention and rehabilitation pilot. It will test how making better co-ordinated, earlier health or employment interventions can help people stay in work and off benefits.

  Jobcentre Plus
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent discussions he has had on developing an environment less conducive to confrontation in Jobcentre Plus offices; what provision for staff safety has been made other than the presence of security guards; and if he will make a statement. [28136]
  536W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The process of designing the new Jobcentre Plus service has focused on creating an environment that offers improved customer services, more pleasant working conditions and enhanced staff safety.

  In designing both office layout and the service experienced by customers, the emphasis has been on eliminating the waiting times, queueing and referrals between offices, which can cause customer frustration and, very occasionally, confrontation. Evidence from the ONE pilots and from other countries suggests that such an approach has a direct and positive bearing on levels of disruptive customer behaviour.

  The new model of service being delivered in Jobcentre Plus offices involves increased telephone contact facilities, booked appointments, dedicated floor managers in every office, nominated personal advisers, swifter benefit assessment while customers look for work and a major investment in IT to help in the jobsearch process.

  Full risk assessments have been carried out in every Jobcentre Plus office and all of their individual recommendations implemented. In addition to security guards, where these have been recommended, safety measures implemented as a result of risk assessments include installation of closed circuit TV cameras and monitors, provision of discrete safety alarm systems, controlled segregation of staff areas via coded door locks and design of office layout to maximise safety.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review staff safety issues at Jobcentre Plus offices; and if he will make a statement. [28135]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The importance of ensuring staff safety has underpinned the development of Jobcentre Plus at every stage. The improved customer services and environment of the new offices are both designed to reduce frustration among the small number of potentially aggressive customers. This has been underpinned by substantial investment in enhanced security measures such as CCTV, safety alarms and an improved security guard specification.

  Full risk assessments were carried out in every office before the service opened to the public in October. Enhanced security measures identified as necessary by those assessments were implemented without exception.

  All of the initial risk assessments are now being individually reviewed to take into account each office's experience of delivering the new service in practice and any additional recommendations will be implemented in full.

  Performance Standards
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what performance standards he has set his Department and its agencies for 2002–03. [27763]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Performance Standards for 2002–03 will be announced shortly.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons convicted of
  537W
  benefit offences have received (a) custodial sentences,(b) community sentences and (c) other sentences since 1997. [27692]

  Sentences on successful prosecution following investigations by the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service and Benefits Agency Security Investigation Service

  Custodial sentences1

  Community sentences2

  Other sentences3

  Deportation

  Total sentences

  1997–98

  363

  2,505

  8,832

  —

  11,700

  1998–99

  448

  2,259

  7,531

  —

  10,238

  1999–2000

  458

  2,178

  6,469

  19

  9,124

  2000–01

  526

  2,667

  8,210

  —

  11,403

  Notes:

  1. Imprisonment, Young Offenders Institute, Custodial and Fine

  2.Community Service

  3.Conditional Discharge, Compensation only, Admonishment, Fined, Probation, Supervision Order, Imprisonment suspended, Attendance Centre, Custodial (suspended) and fine, Other

  Urban Regeneration
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what schemes targeting urban regeneration needs are managed by his Department; how much each scheme has available to invest nationally; what issues each scheme aims to tackle; and how much has been spent annually since 1997(a) nationally, (b) in Teesside, (c) in Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesbrough councils and (d) in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [25475]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  All the programmes run by the Department contribute to the Government's overarching commitment to provide employment opportunity for all, to tackle social exclusion and poverty and to improve economic growth in urban and other areas. Action Teams for Jobs and Employment Zones are two specific initiatives that operate in predominantly urban areas of high unemployment. For information about these initiatives, nationally, in Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, and in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 359W.

  There is also an Action Team in Stockton-on-Tees. This started work in October 2000 and in its first year of operation engaged 799 clients and helped 457 of them into work. The team is now operating in the following wards in the Stockton-on-Tees local authority area: Charltons; Grange; Hardwick; Marsh House; Mile House; Newtown; Northfield; Parkfield; Portrack and Tilery; Roseworth; St. Aidan's; St. Cuthbert's and Wolviston. It has been allocated £1.475 million for the period October 2001-March 2004.

  Benefits Agencies
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on proposals to remove protective screens from Benefits Agencies in the Teesside area; what consultation was carried out with Benefits Agency staff in Teesside about proposals to remove protective screens from Benefits Agencies; if he will make a statement on(a) recent and (b) possible future strike action taken by Benefits Agency staff in Teesside in protest at the removal of screens from benefits agencies; and what precautions will be taken to protect the safety of Benefits Agency staff concerned about
  538W
  Malvolm Wicks
  The requested information is not available in respect of housing benefit fraud.

  The available information is in the table.

  dealing with violent or disturbed customers in the event that protective screens are removed from Benefits Agencies. [25443]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Benefits Agency and Employment Service will cease operations from 1 April 2002. They will be replaced by two new organisations—Jobcentre Plus (for people of working age) and the Pension Service. There are no plans to remove protective screens from Benefits Agency offices in Teesside, during the remaining life of the Benefits Agency.

  There are 56 Pathfinder offices for Jobcentre Plus already in operation, operating within 16 clusters. None are in the Teesside area. These new-style Pathfinder Jobcentre Plus offices are predominantly unscreened though each cluster of Pathfinder offices retains at least one screened area or office to handle transactions or customers known to present a significant risk. The reaction of staff and customers to the new offices has been overwhelmingly positive and the level of recorded incidents of unacceptable behaviour extremely low. New-style Jobcentre Plus offices will be rolled out nationwide over the next four years though no decisions have yet been taken as to when offices in Teesside will be redesigned. As part of the implementation of the new style Jobcentre Plus offices, trade unions and staff will be consulted on delivery plans and safety arrangements and full risk assessments will be undertaken in each office as has been the case in the Pathfinder offices which are already open.

  The Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union has regrettably taken strike action against plans to deliver Jobcentre Plus services from a predominantly unscreened environment. PCS asked their members in the Benefits Agency field organisation and the Employment Service to take strike action on 12 and 13 December 2001. In Teesside all Benefits Agency and Employment Service offices remained open to the public on these days.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of man-hours his Department has lost as a result of the industrial action by the PCS Union. [25228]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Of our 100,000 staff, some 28,000 took strike action for two days in December. In the Pathfinder offices some 28 per cent. are on strike (on 85 per cent. strike pay).
  539W
  As a result, approximately 1.1 million staff hours have been lost up to and including 17 December 2001. The staff hours lost represents some 2.2 per cent. of the total hours expected to be worked.

  New Deal (Publicity Costs)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the breakdown of the costs of the publicity campaign for the new deal for lone parents. [18979]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  A breakdown of costs is available only for the last financial year 2000–01 which was £2,292,000 advertising and media and £295,000 other costs.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how much his Department has spent in the last 12 months on(a) television advertisements,(b) radio advertisements, (c) newspaper advertisements, (d) internet advertisements and (e) leaflets or pamphlets relating to the promotion of the 50-plus; [18052]

  (2) how much his Department has spent on (a) television advertisements, (b) radio advertisements, (c) newspaper advertisements, (d) internet advertisements and (e) leaflets or pamphlets relating to the promotion of the new deal for disabled people in each year since its inception; [18051]

  (3)how much his Department has spent on (a) television advertisements, (b) radio advertisements, (c) newspaper advertisements, (d) internet advertisements and (e) leaflets or pamphlets relating to the promotion of the new deal for young people in each year since its inception; [18048]

  (4)how much his Department has spent on (a) television advertisements, (b) radio advertisements, (c) newspaper advertisements, (d) internet advertisements and (e) leaflets or pamphlets relating to the promotion of the new deal for lone parents in each year since its inception; [18050]

  (5)how much his Department has spent on (a) television advertisements, (b) radio advertisements, (c) newspaper advertisements, (d) internet advertisements and (e) leaflets or pamphlets relating to the promotion of the new deal for the long-term unemployed in each year since its inception; [18049]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information is not available in the format requested and it would involve disproportionate cost to answer.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much of his Department's budget for the next 12 months has been allocated to promotion of(a) the new deal 50-plus, (b) the new deal for disabled people, (c) the new deal for lone parents, (d) the new deal for the long-term unemployed and (e) the new deal for young people. [18039]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In the current financial year the following sums have been allocated to the new deal programmes.
  540W

  Programme

  Allocation (£ million)

  New deal 50-plus

  1

  New deal for disabled people

  1.12

  New deal 25 plus

  0.938

  New deal 18–24

  2

  New deal for lone parents

  2.03

  Allocations for the financial year 2002–03 have not yet been made.

  Departmental Spending
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total expenditure was on(a) advertising, (b) polling, (c) focus groups, (d) design consultants, (e) caterers, (f) production of departmental publications and (g) photographs/photographers by his Department for each year since 1995 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms; what was (A) the annual percentage increase in spending on each category and (B) spending on each category as a percentage of the total departmental running costs; and if he will make a statement. [6918]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Debt Recovery
  Mr. MacDonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about the centralisation of debt recovery within his Department. [33184]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As part of our modernisation programme, we will be creating 10 centres across the country dedicated to the management and recovery of all overpayments. This will enable the current work, processed at 127 sites across the country, to be consolidated. Approximately 1,800 staff in total will be trained and dedicated to this complex but important area of work, providing an enhanced service for both claimants and the taxpayer.

  The centres, which will use existing DWP staff an infrastructure where possible, will be based in Chorlton, Porth, Stornoway, Nuneaton, Ashton in Makerfield, Corby, Glasgow, Dearne Valley, Bradford and Salford.

  The first debt centre will be operational from March 2002 at Chorlton, Manchester. The remainder will be on stream over the period to March 2005.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Listed Buildings
  Bob Russel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to strengthen the role of English Heritage in protecting listed buildings; and if she will make a statement. [25965]

  Mr. Howells
  As stated in the Government's recent policy statement "The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future" (December 2001) the Government remain firmly committed to the maintenance of an effective
  541W
  framework of statutory protection for all elements of the historic environment. As part of the review of the planning system proposed in the Government's Green Paper, "Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change", the Government will consider the role that English Heritage plays in advising local planning authorities on matters affecting listed buildings.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many listed buildings there are in(a) the Buckingham constituency and (b) Buckinghamshire; if she will list them; and how much funding has been provided to assist in their conservation in each of the last five years. [30047]

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total

  English Heritage (Secular)

  374

  195

  580

  486

  145

  1780

  English Heritage (Places of Worship)

  127

  199

  109

  422

  276

  1133

  English Heritage (Conservation Partnership Schemes/ Heritage Economic Regeneration Schemes)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sub-total (English Heritage)

  501

  394

  689

  908

  421

  2913

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  8

  0

  5,028

  346

  353

  5735

  Total

  509

  394

  5,717

  1,254

  774

  8648

  Note:

  Figures rounded up to nearest £1,000

  Comparable figures for English Heritage grants in the Buckingham constituency alone are not readily available and their accrual would be possible only at disproportionate cost. Heritage Lottery Grant figures for the Buckingham constituency are available, however, and are shown in the table.

  £000

  Heritage lottery fund

  1996–97

  8

  1997–98

  0

  1998–99

  5,028

  1999–2000

  0

  2000–01

  78

  Total

  5,114

  Note:

  Figures rounded up to nearest £1,000

  Television Licences (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many prosecution statements were taken in relation to television licence fee evasion and how many prosecutions there were for television licence evasion in each of the last four years. [27691]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of prosecution statements taken and prosecutions heard for television licence fee evasion in the United Kingdom in the last four years was:

  Thousand

  Year

  Prosecution statements taken

  Prosecutions heard

  1998–99

  374

  98

  1999–2000

  320

  89

  2000–01

  366

  151

  2001–021

  268

  104

  1 To December 2001

  542W
  Dr. Howells
  No information is held centrally on the number of buildings of special architectural or historic interest on the statutory list broken down by county or parliamentary constituency. The statutory list for the five districts of Buckinghamshire, including Aylsebury Vale (the area of the former borough of Buckingham), is available for inspection at my Department, at the National Monuments Record Library, and at each of the relevant local authorities.

  The following table shows the grants which English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund have allocated to Buckinghamshire in each of the last five years for the conservation of listed buildings in that county.

  Places of Worship Grant Scheme
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport from what sources the(a) administrative and (b) other costs of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme will be met. [30783]

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

  English Heritage (Grants)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what effect shifting English Heritage grant schemes towards maintenance will have on current sources of grant aid. [30857]

  Dr. Howells
  Government grant in aid to English Heritage will be increased by £5 million in 2002–03 and £11 million in 2003–04 to £115.5 million and £121.4 million respectively.

  It is for English Heritage to decide what priority to give expenditure on their grant schemes from the overall resources available to it from Government grant in aid, as well as from its own fund raising activities.

  Sport
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for To December 2001 Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has
  543W
  had with the New Opportunities Fund about the planned investment in school sport; and if she will make a statement. [31173]

  Mr. Caborn
  I regularly meet representatives of the New Opportunities Fund to discuss their full range of programmes, including the new opportunities for PE and sport programme and will continue to do so to ensure their successful delivery.

  Libraries (Hillingdon)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many libraries in the London Borough of Hillingdon are(a) internet-connected and (b) linked to National Grid for Learning. [31358]

  Dr. Howells
  All public libraries connected to the internet have access to the National Grid for Learning. In the London borough of Hillingdon all 17 libraries have public internet access and therefore are linked to the National Grid for Learning.

  Contracts (KPMG)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what contracts her Department has with KPMG: and what the value is of each one. [31325]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has no current contracts with KPMG.

  All RABs 2000–01

  EEA

  EMA

  LA

  NA

  NWA

  SA

  SEA

  SWA

  WMA

  YA

  Total

  Income

  Total ACE funding (incl.)

  9,718,024

  9,682,517

  32,014,120

  11,714,473

  18,016,684

  11,192,305

  6,999,710

  9,133,900

  13,598,401

  12,458,582

  134,528,716

  Total Other public funding

  463,201

  504,501

  0

  1,170,225

  1,032,724

  583,693

  451,610

  285,322

  543,121

  487,244

  5,521,641

  Total Other income

  372,480

  139,473

  218,115

  1,002,746

  1,618,562

  209,921

  148,699

  196,246

  79,096

  202,257

  4,187,595

  Total income

  10,553,705

  10,326,491

  32,232,235

  13,887,444

  20,667,970

  11,985,919

  7,600,019

  9,615,468

  14,220,618

  13,148,083

  144,237,952

  Total Admin and Overheads

  1,650,559

  1,689,075

  3,411,655

  1,509,698

  1,905,629

  1,495,355

  1,606,140

  1,461,385

  1,574,264

  1,548,786

  17,852,546

  Board members' expenses

  2,510

  3,804

  1,422

  7,204

  —

  6,368

  —

  1,564

  —

  —

  22,872

  Board members' salaries

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  0

  —

  0

  Notes:

  1.Figures for LA, NWA, SA, SEA, WMA and YA are taken from their published report and accounts for 2000–01.

  2.Figures for EEA, EMA, NA and SWA are taken from their audited accounts for 2000–01

  3.Figures for board members' expenses are given only when they are specifically detailed as such within the accounts. A nil figure is given only for Board members' salaries when this is stated in the accounts.

  Board members' expenses/salaries

  4.NA's figure is referred to as travel and committee costs in respect of the reimbursement of travel expenses incurred by seven trustees/directors. NWA make no reference to directors or board members in their R&A.

  5.SEA make no reference to directors or board members in their R&A.

  6.SWA's list as £4,021 as Board Expenses—it has been assumed that this means expenses related to board meetings, as they detail a separate amount of £1,564 as Directors' Reimbursed Expenses.

  7.WMA give a figure of £11,667 as Company Expenses, but do not detail amounts reimbursed to board members.

  8.YA's give a figure of £45,630 as Company Expenses, but make no reference to, nor give figures related to, directors or board members in their R&A.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what additional security measures are planned by her Department to deter and detect theft and fraud. [31799]

  Free TV Licences (Cathcart)
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioner households in Glasgow, Cathcart are benefiting from free television licences. [31215]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, which administers for the BBC as Licensing Authority the free television licence concession for the over-75s, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 5,000 people aged 75 or over living in the Glasgow, Cathcart constituency.

  Public Bodies
  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 regional arts board in England. [30198]

  Dr. Howells
  Information about salaries of board members to public bodies is included in the Cabinet Office's annual report, "Public Bodies". Copies of this are placed in the Library of the House and the report is published on the Cabinet Office's internet website. The next edition of "Public Bodies", which will include numbers of appointments at 31 March 2001, is shortly to be published.

  The table, supplied by the Arts Council of England on behalf of the regional arts boards contains the information requested by the hon. Member:

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport have had no incidents of fraud to report in recent years but systems in place are constantly reviewed. Two recent thefts have been investigated by the police and physical security and other measures have been taken to either prevent a repeat or detect and apprehend the
  545W
  perpetrator. Security cover at departmental premises is 24 hours, seven days a week with closed circuit television surveillance in place. Security staff patrolling and CCTV unit placement is under review. Security risk assessments are standard practice, as is the vetting of prospective recruits. In common with other Departments, staff are encouraged to report any suspicions they may have that fraud and/or theft is taking place in the workplace.

HEALTH

  Nursing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer, of 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 942–43W, on nursing care, when the evaluation of the implementation will be published. [31383]

  Jacqui Smith
  A report of the evaluation of the implementation of free nursing care will be available in autumn 2002.

  Earnings/House Price Ratio
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the ratio is between the average earnings of a newly qualified doctor and the average house price in(a) Surrey, (b) London, (c) Yorkshire and (d) Tyne and Wear; [31560]

  (2) what are the average earnings of a nurse in (a) Surrey and (b) London; [31558]

  (3) what the ratio is between the average earnings of a nurse with 10 years' experience and the average house price in (a) Surrey, (b) London, (c) Yorkshire and (d) Tyne and Wear; [31561]

  (4) what the ratio is between the average earnings of a newly qualified nurse and the average house price in (a) Surrey, (b) London, (c) Yorkshire and (d) Tyne and Wear. [31562]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  The estimated average earnings of a full time (a) newly qualified grade D nurse (b) experienced grade F nurse and (c) newly qualified doctor employed in the national health service in 2001–2 is set out in the table.

  £

  London region

  Fringe zone1

  Northern and Yorkshire Region2

  Newly qualified grade D nurse

  20,800

  19,300

  17,900

  An experienced grade F nurse

  30,000

  28,600

  26,300

  Newly qualified doctor

  Pre registration house officer (junior doctor)

  25,800

  24,600

  24,600

  Senior house officer

  31,900

  30,800

  30,500

  1 Fringe is derived from all staff in the earnings survey sample who receive a fringe area payment, taken to be typical of Surrey

  2 Includes Tyne and Wear

  Source:

  Department of Health's August 2000 NHS earnings survey

  Newly qualified pre-registration house officers (junior doctors) are provided with free accommodation for their pre-registration year only.
  546W
  The Department does not collect information about average house prices.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the ratio is between the average earnings of a GP and the average house price in(a) Surrey, (b) London, (c) Yorkshire and (d) Tyne and Wear. [31559]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: For 2000–01 the intended average net income for a full-time general practitioner principal delivering general medical services is £60,655.

  The Department does not collect information about average house prices.

  Violet Hardy
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the report on the death of Violet Hardy will be made public; and if he will make a statement. [31291]

  Jacqui Smith
  The work being undertaken by Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority and Lambeth social services department on the report on the circumstances of the death of Violet Hardy is nearing completion. It is expected that the report will be published in the spring.

  Home Helps
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the total number of pensioners receiving a visit from a local authority home help in each of the past 10 years. [30566]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of pensioners receiving home help is not collected. The table shows the total number of households receiving home help/home care during a survey week from 1992 to 2000 and the number of contact hours provided to those households. Information relating to the age of the oldest member of the household was collected between 1992 and 1998 and is also given in the table. Households may have received more than one visit during the week.

  Households receiving home help or home care, 1992 to 2000, England

  Survey week during september

  Rounded numbers

  Total number of households1

  Contact hours2

  Households where the oldest person was aged 65 or over

  1992

  528,500

  1,687,000

  476,200

  1993

  514,600

  1,780,800

  463,200

  1994

  538,900

  2,215,100

  453,100

  1995

  513,600

  2,395,700

  451,300

  1996

  491,100

  2,486,700

  427,000

  1997

  479,100

  2,607,500

  410,500

  1998

  447,200

  2,607,400

  378,100

  1999

  424,000

  2,678,400

  3—

  20044

  379,800

  2,791,400

  3—

  1 Total number of households receiving home help or home care during the survey week.

  2 Information on contact hours relates to all households and is not available by age.

  3 Not collected

  4 The method of collecting this information changed in 2000 so figures for this year are not strictly comparable with previous years.

  Source:

  DH annual return HH1

  Cancelled Operations
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled in each of the last 10 years(a) as a total figure and (b) as a percentage of all patients treated. [30576]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table. Data on operations cancelled (for non medical reasons) on the day of admission, or on day of surgery, were not collected prior to 1994–95.

  Number of operations cancelled (for non medical reasons) on the day of admission, or on day of surgery, as a percentage of all elective admissions

  Number of cancelled operations

  Number of elelctive admissions

  Cancellations as a percentage of admissions

  2000–01

  77,818

  5,474,550

  1.42

  1999–2000

  60,242

  5,376,761

  1.12

  1998–99

  56,150

  5,306,320

  1.06

  1997–98

  50,505

  4,849,995

  1.04

  1996–97

  52,047

  4,820,671

  1.08

  1995–96

  54,483

  4,787,348

  1.14

  1994–95

  48,129

  4,537,272

  1.06

  Note:

  Number of elective admissions are general and acute first finished consultant episodes.

  Source:

  Patients Charter returns, Common Information Core

  Mental Health
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients received(a) in-patient and (b) out-patient care in the mental health sector of the NHS in each of the last 10 years. [30575]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table relating to in-patient hospital care shows the estimated number of finished consultant episodes under mental illness and learning disability specialties, in England, for 1991–92 to 2000–01.

  The consultant out-patient table shows the estimated number of first out-patient attendances under mental illness and learning disability specialties, in England, for 1991–92 to 2000–01.

  Finished consultant episodes in NHS hospitals, under mental illness and learning disability specialties, England, 1991–92 to 2000–01

  Mental illness

  Learning disabilities

  1991–92

  225,950

  54,370

  1992–93

  234,170

  56,960

  1993–94

  237,620

  56,400

  1994–95

  238,220

  56,880

  1995–96

  241,800

  55,710

  1996–97

  237,370

  56,690

  1997–98

  236,000

  57,690

  1998–99

  216,110

  38,710

  1999–2000

  214,880

  36,340

  2000–01

  206,950

  36,370

  Notes:

  1. Data for 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 have not been grossed for coverage and have a provisional status.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  HES
  548W

  Consultant out-patient first attendances, under mental illness and learning disability specialties, England, 1991–92 to 2000–01

  Mental illness

  Learning disabilities

  1991–92

  155,150

  3,050

  1992–93

  166,690

  3,880

  1993–94

  167,780

  5,230

  1994–95

  171,380

  4,660

  1995–96

  176,150

  5,500

  1996–97

  188,110

  5,630

  1997–98

  186,910

  6,270

  1998–99

  183,250

  6,490

  1999–2000

  179,100

  6,990

  2000–01

  183,530

  7,500

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH09

  Coronary Care Units (Access)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the maximum distance is a patient might be expected to travel to a coronary care unit in(a) miles and (b) minutes. [31646]

  Yvette Cooper
  There is no specified maximum time or distance that patients might be expected to travel to a coronary care unit. Our aim is that in time the national health service should be able to offer all heart patients fair access to the surgical and other specialist services they need in a local unit and within an acceptable time. This is why we have developed a national strategy to expand the capacity to perform heart operations.

  This capital investment programme means that we are investing £230 million in 12 schemes to provide new and bigger heart surgery facilities.

  In addition we have announced the patient choice scheme which means that from July appropriate patients who would otherwise have to wait more than six months will be able to choose to be treated in a different hospital so that they get treatment more quickly. This may involve travelling further, but only if the patient decides that is what they want to do.

  Neurology
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the(a) scope and (b) content of the National Service Framework on neurological conditions. [31880]

  Jacqui Smith
  The scoping event held in November with a wide cross section of stakeholders provided some very helpful material, relevant both to the scope of the National Service Framework for Long-term Conditions (NSF) and to considerations about how to develop it. The NSF project team will advise Ministers shortly about refining the scope of the NSF and identifying the specific conditions to be included. The Department expects to announce details of the scope and content of the NSF later this year.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out for each NHS(a) region, (b) health authority and (c) trust the (i) mean, (ii) mode and (iii) median waiting time for a first appointment to see a neurologist in each quarter for the last four years. [31877]
  549W
  Mr. Hutton
  The data requested are being prepared by the Department and will be published in full shortly. Waiting times data are available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/waiting

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many neurologists there were in England, broken down by region, in the last five years; and how many he estimates there will be in post in the next five years. [31878]

  Hospital medical staff within the neurology specialty by region

  As at 30 September

  Number

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  All staff

  Consultant

  All staff

  Consultant

  All staff

  Consultant

  All staff

  Consultant

  All staff

  Consultant

  England

  620

  260

  640

  280

  640

  300

  660

  300

  690

  330

  Northern and Yorkshire

  80

  30

  80

  30

  70

  30

  70

  30

  70

  40

  Trent

  40

  20

  50

  20

  50

  20

  50

  20

  60

  20

  West Midlands

  50

  20

  50

  30

  60

  30

  70

  30

  70

  30

  North West

  70

  30

  70

  30

  70

  30

  80

  40

  80

  40

  Eastern

  50

  20

  50

  20

  50

  20

  60

  30

  60

  30

  London

  220

  90

  230

  100

  220

  100

  200

  100

  210

  100

  South East

  90

  40

  90

  40

  100

  50

  100

  50

  110

  60

  South Western

  40

  20

  40

  20

  40

  20

  40

  20

  50

  20

  Note:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2.Where regions are shown, staff holding appointments in more than one region are included separately in each region. The sum of regional totals therefore differs slightly from the England total and a direct comparison between England totals and regional totals is not advised.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental work force census

  Acquired Brain Injury
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to improve community-based rehabilitation services for those with an acquired brain injury. [16820]

  Ms Blears
  In February 2001, the Department announced a National Service Framework for long-term conditions would be developed, with a particular focus on the needs of people with neurological disease and brain and spinal injury. The NSF will try to encompass all aspects of care including rehabilitation, and pensure fair and appropriate access to these across the country.

  The Health Select Committee report on head injury rehabilitation, and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical guideline for the initial assessment, management and first referral of patients with head injury are likely to inform the development of the NSF.

  In-patient Treatment (Bedfordshire)
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give(a) the number and (b) the percentage of patients in Bedfordshire waiting over 12 months for in-patient treatment in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2001. [19737]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Quarter 2

  1997–98

  2001–02

  Total patients waiting for in-patient treatment

  12.267

  10,304

  12+ waiters

  641

  779

  Percentage of 12+ waiters

  5.23

  7.56

  Source:

  KH07 quarterly return/monthly returns
  550W
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Our current supply projections expect an increase of around 75 trained specialists to be available to take up consultant posts in neurology by 2005, an increase of 23 per cent.

  NHS Dentistry (Braintree)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists were providing NHS treatment in the Braintree district in(a) 1979, (b) 1989, (c) 1997 and (d) 2001. [21755]

  Ms Blears
  The total number of general dental service dentists who carry out the majority of their work in North Essex health authority area which includes the Braintree district is shown in the table for 30 September in the years 1997 and 2001.

  Comparable data for 1979 and 1989 are not available. Before April 1990, Essex Family Practitioner Committee covered the areas of North Essex and South Essex health authorities. Data for this area are given for 1979 and 1989 and also for the later years for comparison.

  General dental service: number of dentists in North Essex HA and Essex HAs at 30 September1

  Year

  North Essex HA

  North and South Essex HAs2

  1979

  n/a

  319

  1989

  n/a

  430

  1997

  285

  496

  2001

  319

  566

  1 Dentists who do the majority of their work in the area. Excludes dentists who do most of their work in other areas.

  2 Before April 1990, Essex Family Practitioner Committee (FPC) covered the areas of North Essex and South Essex health authorities.

  Public Relations Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [27394]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in each of the last four years. [27962]

  Ms Blears
  The estimate of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by the Department, its executive agencies and executive non-departmental public bodies in each of the past four complete financial years is shown in the table.

  £000

  1997–98

  2,290

  1998–99

  2,023

  Emergency calls resulting in an emergency response arriving at the scene of the incident1

  Ambulance NHS Trust

  Thousand

  Rate per thousand population

  England

  3,558

  71

  Northern and Yorkshire

  476

  68

  West Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance NHS Trust

  172

  81

  Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  132

  47

  Cumbria Ambulance NHS Trust

  24

  38

  North East Ambulance NHS Trust

  148

  105

  Trent

  334

  69

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance NHS Trust

  80

  61

  Lincolnshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  59

  93

  East Midlands Ambulance NHS Trust

  195

  67

  Eastern

  328

  60

  Essex Ambulance NHS Trust

  115

  70

  East Anglian Ambulance NHS Trust

  114

  52

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  99

  61

  London

  700

  95

  London Ambulance NHS Trust

  700

  95

  South East

  523

  60

  Royal Berkshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  47

  58

  Hampshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  83

  50

  Isle of Wight Ambulance Service (NHS Trust)2

  8

  59

  Kent Ambulance NHS Trust

  97

  61

  Oxfordshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  27

  43

  Surrey Ambulance NHS Trust

  78

  72

  Sussex Ambulance NHS Trust

  115

  76

  The Two Shires Ambulance NHS Trust

  68

  52

  South West

  291

  59

  Avon Ambulance NHS Trust

  60

  59

  Dorset Ambulance NHS Trust

  54

  77

  Gloucestershire Ambulance NHS Trust

  27

  48

  West Country Ambulance NHS Trust

  122

  58

  Wiltshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  29

  47

  West Midlands

  365

  68

  Hereford and Worcester Ambulance NHS Trust

  34

  48

  Shropshire Ambulance Service (NHS Trust)2

  22

  50

  Staffordshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  64

  61

  Warwickshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  27

  34

  West Midlands Metropolitan Ambulance NHS Trust

  218

  94

  North-west

  540

  86

  Lancashire Ambulance NHS Trust

  112

  87

  552W

  £000

  1999–2000

  5,778

  2000–01

  5,002

  This does not include refurbishment work carried out within the national health service nor the cost of fitting out of any new properties prior to occupation.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of(a) emergency and (b) non-emergency calls per year handled by each ambulance service was in (i) England, (ii) South-west England and (iii) South-east England; and what is the number per thousand population in the last 12 months. [28227]

  Ms Blears
  Information for all ambulance national health service trusts, by regional office area, about the number of emergency calls received in 2000–01 that resulted in an emergency response arriving at the scene of the incident is shown in the table. The rate per thousand population is also included. Information about non-emergency calls is not available in the form requested.
  553W

  Emergency calls resulting in an emergency response arriving at the scene of the incident1

  Ambulance NHS Trust

  Thousand

  Rate per thousand population

  Mersey Regional Ambulance NHS Trust

  193

  81

  Greater Manchester Ambulance NHS Trust

  235

  90

  1 Excludes duplicate calls to the same incidents.

  2 Part of a community Trust

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics mid-year population estimates for 2000 Department of Health KA34 return, Statistics Division SD2B

  Information about non emergency patient journeys and other requests for transport, together with more detailed information about response times to Government targets for all NHS ambulance trusts are contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 2000–01". A copy is in the Library and available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0115.htm.

  Essex Health Authority
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of implementing the management changes associated with the creation of the Essex health authority. [28498]

  Ms Blears
  The creation of Essex health authority from 1 April 2002 is part of the national programme of implementing shifting the balance of power encompassing changes to the national health service at national, regional and local level. Taken together these changes will release £100 million of savings from reducing bureaucracy.

  NHS Asset Sales
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the disposal of land and buildings and other assets deemed surplus to requirements by three star NHS trusts in England will require the consent or approval of other bodies. [28673]

  Mr. Hutton
  When the national health service performance ratings for acute national health service trusts were published in September 2001, a number of earned autonomy freedoms were announced for the top performing hospitals. Three star trusts are able to retain £5 million, instead of the current £1 million, of the receipt from land sales without the need for a business case.

  In accordance with the Department's Estatecode these NHS trusts are still required to refer proposed disposals to NHS Estates who will provide an informed client overview of those disposals.

  Health Cost Claim Form
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has plans to simplify form HC1, entitled Claim for Help with Health Costs. [28972]

  Ms Blears
  Form HC1 has been designed to collect the information necessary to calculate a person's entitlement to help with health costs. We have no plans to amend it.

  Nurses (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many nurses are employed in each of the hospitals located in Buckinghamshire health authority; [30057]
  554W
  (2) how many nursing vacancies there are in the Buckinghamshire health authority area; and what the average figure is for each hospital trust. [30038]

  Ms Blears
  Information on nursing staff in the Buckinghamshire health authority area is currently only available for 2000, this is shown in the table.

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff by organisation and qualification within the Buckinghamshire health authority area as at 30 September 2000

  Whole-time equivalents

  Headcount

  All nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  3,550

  5,390

  Qualified

  2,680

  3,830

  Unqualified

  870

  1,560

  Aylesbury Vale Community Healthcare

  NHS Trust

  660

  1,120

  Qualified

  380

  610

  Unqualified

  280

  510

  Buckinghamshire HA

  Qualified

  1—

  1—

  Milton Keynes Community Health NHS Trust

  400

  520

  Qualified

  300

  360

  Unqualified

  110

  150

  Milton Keynes General Hospital NHS Trust

  660

  1,100

  Qualified

  530

  800

  Unqualified

  130

  300

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  1,140

  1,720

  Qualified

  890

  1,270

  Unqualified

  250

  450

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital NHS Trust

  640

  880

  Qualified

  540

  720

  Unqualified

  100

  160

  Two Shires—Northampton and Bucks Ambulance NHS Trust

  Qualified

  40

  50

  1 Five or less and greater than zero

  Notes:

  1. Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  3. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical work force census

  Data at 30 September 2001 will be available shortly.

  For the number of vacancies, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 4 December 2001, Official Report, columns 182–83W.

  Christmas-day Working
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS staff were required to work on Christmas day 2001 as a percentage of the normal staffing levels. [30939]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of national health service staff working or required to work on Christmas day is not collected centrally.

  The Department's work force censuses collect the number of staff working for the national health service in England, once a year at 30 September1.
  1 The Department of Health General and Personal Medical Service (GPMS) Statistics collected the number of staff working in general and personal medical services as at 1 October between 1997 and 1999. The 2000 census and subsequent collections are as at 30 September.

  Pay Beds
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate the(a) gross income to the national health service provided by pay beds and (b) income net of the cost to NHS capacity of the provision of pay beds in each of the last five financial years for which figures are available; [30990]

  (2) what recent estimate he has made of the extent to which the fee covers the cost of treatment in NHS hospital pay beds, with special reference to use of (a) NHS salaried staff and (b) other NHS facilities; [30991]

  (3) how many pay beds there were in the national health service in each year since 1977; [30992]

  (4) what percentage of beds in NHS hospitals are denoted as for private patients, broken down by (a) NHS trust (b) region and (c) for the whole of England. [30993]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not hold information centrally on the number of pay beds in the national health service. Laing and Buisson, who publish reviews on the independent healthcare sector, estimate that as of mid-June 2001 there were approximately 3,000 pay beds in the NHS, around 1,400 of which were in dedicated private patient units (PPUs). The remaining 1,600 beds were in ordinary NHS wards.

  There are no national estimates on the income and related costs of pay beds in the national health service. Each NHS trust is responsible for ensuring that the income received for pay beds covers the direct costs involved plus a contribution towards overheads.

  Figures for gross and net income solely for pay beds is not collected centrally. The Department does collect gross income information under the headings of `non-NHS private patients' and `non-NHS other'. No information is available on a net basis. `Non-NHS patients' includes all income received and receivable for patient care services from private patients. `Non-NHS other' includes a number of sources such as prescription charges in trusts, Road Traffic Act income (1996–97 only), amenity bed charges, income from overseas patients which are not covered by reciprocal agreements and income from the capital hip care Centre (from 1998–99).

  Totals of the gross income for these two categories for the last five financial years are shown in the table.
  556W

  £000

  Year

  Non-NHS patients

  Non-NHS other

  1996–97

  235,733

  153,384

  1997–98

  273,232

  169,566

  1998–99

  290,840

  216,677

  1999–2000

  304,826

  224,187

  2000–01

  316,627

  265,953

  Source:

  NHS Trust Summarisation Schedules 1996–97 to 2000–01.

  Multiple Sclerosis Drugs
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent discussions he has had with the drug companies about the cost of beta interferon; [31195]

  (2) what progress he has made with trials to extend the availability of beta interferon to people with MS; and if he will make a statement. [31194]

  Ms Blears
  Discussions are continuing with the manufacturers of the four disease modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis. These discussions are dependent upon the final guidance about these drugs from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions his Department has had with the(a) MS Society, (b) manufacturers and (c) neurologists, about options for continuing the availability of beta interferon and glatiramer within the NHS; when he expects those discussions to be concluded; and if he will make a statement concerning the timing of a trial; [13108]

  (2) by what date everyone with MS who is eligible for beta interferon will have received these drugs under the proposed prescription plus monitoring scheme; [29267]

  (3) what assessment he has made of how consultant (a) neurologists and (b) specialist nurses in post will cope with implementing the prescription plus monitoring scheme for beta interferon; and whether any further resources will be made available to facilitate the scheme; [29282]

  (4) when he plans to issue the first prescriptions for beta interferon under the proposed prescription plus monitoring scheme; and if he will make an announcement on this. [29268]

  Ms Blears
  Discussions are continuing with the manufacturers of the four disease modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis. These discussions are dependent upon the final guidance about these drugs from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  Patient Confidentiality
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what access(a) civil servants outside the national health service and (b) Ministers have to the private medical records of individuals. [31317]

  Ms Blears
  Neither Ministers nor civil servants outside of the national health service have access to the private medical records of individuals. Disclosures of information contained in medical records to Ministers and civil servants must comply with data protection, common law and human rights requirements.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 26 June 2001 to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes),Official Report, column 69W, what recent studies his Department has commissioned, undertaken and reviewed concerning the use of private finance within the national health service; and whether these demonstrate that the private finance option is better value for money when compared to the publicly funded alternative. [31458]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department internally reviews all private finance initiative projects through the business case approval system as laid out in the Department's capital investment manual. To be approved, the business case must demonstrate that, overall, the private finance option is value for money when compared to the publicly funded alternative, the public sector comparator, and that it provides improved facilities for the national health service. NHS trusts are required to monitor performance throughout the lifetime of the PFI contract.

  Because of PFI, eight major new hospitals have opened and another 15 are under construction, representing capital investment in the NHS of over £2 billion.

  The Department has commissioned no external studies into the use of PFI in the NHS.

  GP Prescribing Budget
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities have advised general practitioners to suspend temporarily the prescribing of statins in order to reduce the expected overspend on the general practitioners prescribing budget. [31108]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: We are not aware of any health authorities offering such advice to their general practitioners. GPs should continue to prescribe medicines considered appropriate to meet the clinical needs of patients.

  Gluteraldehyde
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS hospitals in England and Wales use(a) Cidex and (b) Gluteraldehyde as a disinfecting agent; what assessment he has made of the safety implications for staff and patients of its continued use; and if he will make a statement. [30879]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: It is common practice within national health service hospitals to use chemicals to disinfect medical devices such as flexible endoscopes, and some surgical instruments where the device cannot be decontaminated by conventional methods which employ steam at high temperature. The most common chemical used is Gluteraldehyde, of which Cidex is a brand name. Information on which chemicals are used at individual hospitals in England is not collected centrally.

  Gluteraldehyde falls under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations and is subject to strict control and continuous monitoring at local level. An annual risk assessment is required of how this substance is being used in the clinical setting. Where operating procedures suggest that exposure risk from inhalation is high, there is a requirement under the Health and Safety at Work Act to undertake environmental
  558W
  monitoring of the area. Monitoring is carried out by a qualified person with immediate corrective action being taken where necessary. This is included in the Controls Assurance Standards.

  Whittington Hospital
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he took to ensure that no information containing sensitive personal data relating to patients at Whittington hospital, Mrs. Rose Addis, Mr. J. Scott-Faulkner and Mr. S. Hockley was processed, beyond that deliberately made public by the patients themselves. [31379]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: Responsibility for the processing of data relating to patients at the Whittington hospital rests with the hospital, subject to guidance issued by the Department. Guidance issued in March 1996 made it clear that patient consent should be sought prior to disclosing confidential information to the media and that even where patients themselves make details public, national health service bodies remain bound by patient confidentiality.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who(a) inside and (b) outside the NHS has had access to the patient records of Mrs. Rose Addis, Mr. S. Hockley and Mr. J. Scott-Faulkner since 20 January; whether such access was for medical purposes; and if the explicit consent of the data subject was obtained for such access. [31382]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: The operational procedures of the Whittington hospital are the responsibility of the hospital. Guidance issued by the Department makes it clear that all national health service bodies are expected to comply with all relevant legal requirements, including those relating to data protection and patient confidentiality.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who the Caldicott Guardians and data protection officers are in respect of patient records at the Whittington hospital for patients Mrs. Rose Addis, Mr. J. Scott-Faulkner and Mr. S. Hockley. [31378]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: Dr. Norman Parker, medical director at the Whittington hospital national health service trust is the Caldicott Guardian. Mr. Leo Bremner is the data protection officer.

  SNOMED
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the SNOMED clinical coding system is implemented within the NHS. [31545]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The SNOMED clinical terms first release is due at the end of January 2002 and, in the national health service, will be for implementation testing only. An evaluation and refinement programme has been funded which will examine implementation issues in both the primary care sector (the ADVENT project) and across a broad range of clinical specialities (multi-professional quality assurance—MPQA). In parallel, an implementation scoping study will address issues around costs, migration from read codes, supplier involvement, and education and training

  559W
  requirements in the service. This will lead to the development of a costed implementation plan for roll-out of SNOMED CT across the NHS.

  Non-executive Posts (Epsom and Ewell)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the proportion of non-executive posts filled by people living in the Epsom and Ewell constituency in health authorities and trusts covering the constituency(a) in 1997 and (b) at the latest available date. [31384]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The information requested is given in the table:

  Non-executive posts on national health service boards serving the Epsom and Ewell constituency occupied by people living in Epsom and Ewell

  1997 (April)

  2002 (January)

  East Surrey health authority

  1 (6)

  0 (5)

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS trust

  1 (6)

  1 (6)

  Surrey Ambulance NHS trust

  1 (6)

  1 (6)

  Surrey Oaklands NHS Trust

  1 (6)

  1 (5)

  Total

  4 (24)

  3 (22)

  Note:

  Figures in brackets give total number of non-executives on board.

  Winter Deaths
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many winter excess deaths there were, by region, in each of the last 10 years(a) in total number and (b) as a percentage of the elderly population; and what recent measures the Government have taken to reduce the number of winter excess deaths. [30611]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  The information is not available as a percentage of the elderly population.

  Excess winter deaths1 by age-group and Government office region of usual residence, 1991–92 to 1999–2000, and 2000–012

  Age group

  1991–923

  1992–933

  1993–943

  1994–953

  1995–963

  1996–973

  1997–983

  1998–993

  1999–20003

  2000–014

  England, Wales and elsewhere

  0–64

  2,740

  2,120

  2,120

  2,200

  2,900

  3,040

  1,700

  3,100

  3,770

  2,300

  65–74

  6,360

  4,710

  4,160

  5,490

  7,070

  6,970

  4,200

  6,950

  7,440

  3,300

  75–84

  13,500

  9,330

  9,290

  9,700

  14,370

  17,540

  7,870

  16,340

  16,840

  8,400

  85+

  12,250

  9,490

  10,330

  9,910

  15,850

  20,140

  9,130

  20,450

  20,390

  11,000

  All ages

  34,850

  25,650

  25,900

  27,290

  40,190

  47,690

  22,900

  46,840

  48,440

  25,000

  North-east

  0–64

  260

  160

  210

  130

  250

  130

  110

  90

  280

  100

  65–74

  510

  280

  340

  270

  520

  500

  360

  470

  480

  300

  75–84

  930

  550

  630

  400

  650

  920

  530

  890

  1,030

  600

  85+

  560

  420

  440

  420

  650

  680

  550

  920

  880

  500

  All ages

  2,260

  1,410

  1,610

  1,210

  2,080

  2,230

  1,550

  2,370

  2,680

  1,500

  North-west

  0–64

  430

  530

  330

  230

  630

  510

  280

  630

  420

  200

  65–74

  1,050

  740

  510

  960

  1,000

  1,070

  500

  1,230

  1,090

  600

  75–84

  2,020

  1,310

  1,050

  1,410

  2,060

  2,260

  980

  2,600

  2,060

  1,300

  85+

  1,480

  1,320

  1,080

  1,190

  1,940

  2,520

  1,010

  2,880

  2,520

  1,600

  All ages

  4,980

  3,880

  2,980

  3,790

  5,630

  6,360

  2,770

  7,350

  6,090

  3,800

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  0–64

  340

  40

  190

  120

  250

  240

  210

  260

  350

  200

  65–74

  800

  500

  620

  520

  820

  700

  480

  810

  680

  500

  75–84

  1,520

  870

  1,170

  1,030

  1,440

  1,810

  860

  1,800

  1,690

  800

  85+

  1,320

  1,060

  1,120

  1,100

  1,530

  1,800

  910

  1,890

  1,900

  1,000

  All ages

  3,970

  2,470

  3,110

  2,780

  4,030

  4,540

  2,460

  4,760

  4,620

  2,600

  560W
  The causes of excess winter deaths are complex but cold weather and illnesses such as influenza play an important part.

  We have introduced a programme of measures, outlined in the United Kingdom fuel poverty strategy, aimed at ensuring people, especially older people, are able to keep adequately warm at reasonable cost.

  Health professionals have been encouraged to identify cold/health related issues and raise awareness of help available.

  A "Keep Warm, Keep Well" campaign operates in England each winter which provides free booklets for the public and special literature for health professionals; a telephone helpline, and advice on how those most in need may apply for grants (such as the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme—a scheme providing grants for comprehensive packages of insulation and heating improvements for those most vulnerable to cold-related ill health); advice on benefit payments; as well as the health benefits of keeping warm.

  Influenza vaccine is offered free to everybody aged 65 and over and to those of any age who are in at risk groups, for example with conditions where their health would be at particular risk if they caught influenza. At risk groups are those with chronic heart disease; chronic respiratory disease (including asthma); renal disease,; diabetes mellitus; and immunosuppression due to disease or treatment and also to residents of long-stay residential homes or care facilities.

  In 2000–01, 65 per cent. of those aged 65 and over were immunised (the target was a minimum of at least 60 per cent., it was also the first time a target had been set).

  Final monitoring figures at the end of December 2001, show that 68 per cent. of those aged 65 and over were immunised this winter. This is 3 percentage points higher than the 65 per cent. target set at the start of the campaign.
  561W

  Excess winter deaths1 by age-group and Government office region of usual residence, 1991–92 to 1999–2000, and 2000–012

  Age group

  1991–923

  1992–933

  1993–943

  1994–953

  1995–963

  1996–973

  1997–983

  1998–993

  1999–20003

  2000–014

  East midlands

  0–64

  260

  230

  240

  240

  170

  250

  130

  310

  350

  200

  65–74

  640

  460

  350

  580

  500

  470

  360

  550

  590

  300

  75–84

  1,150

  700

  900

  850

  1,110

  1,280

  700

  1,560

  1,270

  800

  85+

  1,090

  790

  980

  660

  1,140

  1,540

  820

  1,680

  1,620

  1,000

  All ages

  3,140

  2,180

  2,470

  2,330

  2,930

  3,540

  2,000

  4,090

  3,820

  2,200

  West midlands

  0–64

  380

  270

  280

  250

  250

  410

  250

  470

  440

  300

  65–74

  670

  520

  320

  600

  880

  740

  510

  750

  950

  400

  75–84

  1,260

  970

  860

  700

  1,580

  1,650

  800

  1,730

  1,810

  1,000

  85+

  1,060

  830

  950

  760

  1,460

  1,740

  900

  1,920

  2,090

  900

  All ages

  3,370

  2,590

  2,400

  2,310

  4,160

  4,530

  2,460

  4,860

  5,290

  2,600

  East

  0–64

  150

  180

  170

  240

  180

  240

  170

  130

  330

  100

  65–74

  560

  400

  550

  560

  480

  710

  410

  640

  670

  200

  75–84

  1,180

  850

  1,010

  1,110

  1,380

  1,720

  930

  1,590

  1,800

  1,000

  85+

  1,240

  940

  1,220

  1,090

  1,830

  2,320

  1,030

  2,440

  2,070

  1,200

  All ages

  3,130

  2,360

  2,940

  3,000

  3,870

  5,000

  2,540

  4,800

  4,880

  2,400

  London

  0–64

  300

  310

  290

  380

  440

  430

  150

  420

  470

  300

  65–74

  720

  560

  490

  530

  860

  870

  320

  670

  930

  300

  75–84

  1,690

  1,220

  1,130

  1,370

  1,680

  2,240

  930

  1,690

  2,050

  800

  85+

  1,540

  1,260

  1,240

  1,230

  1,840

  2,390

  1,120

  2,160

  2,430

  1,400

  All ages

  4,240

  3,360

  3,150

  3,500

  4,830

  5,940

  2,520

  4,940

  5,870

  2,800

  South east

  0–64

  360

  160

  90

  220

  310

  420

  250

  370

  630

  300

  65–74

  660

  840

  530

  690

  940

  870

  570

  890

  1,050

  200

  75–84

  1,790

  1,360

  1,340

  1,330

  2,230

  2,770

  990

  2,190

  2,470

  1,000

  85+

  1,760

  1,400

  1,780

  1,750

  2,670

  3,600

  1,410

  3,260

  3,530

  1,600

  All ages

  4,560

  3,770

  3,750

  3,990

  6,150

  7,650

  3,210

  6,710

  7,680

  3,200

  South-west

  0–64

  110

  120

  310

  280

  250

  300

  120

  230

  310

  300

  65–74

  440

  220

  330

  550

  690

  600

  400

  420

  620

  200

  75–84

  1,380

  850

  810

  920

  1,320

  1,830

  700

  1,380

  1,580

  500

  85+

  1,420

  990

  1,150

  1,100

  1,880

  2,320

  1,020

  2,100

  2,220

  1,200

  All ages

  3,350

  2,180

  2,600

  2,850

  4,140

  5,060

  2,240

  4,130

  4,730

  2,300

  Wales

  0–64

  240

  200

  50

  200

  180

  120

  90

  230

  220

  200

  65–74

  360

  260

  180

  270

  420

  490

  360

  540

  420

  200

  75–84

  610

  670

  420

  570

  920

  1,050

  480

  930

  1,090

  600

  85+

  780

  490

  370

  600

  910

  1,220

  350

  1,200

  1,150

  600

  All ages

  1,980

  1,610

  1,010

  1,650

  2,440

  2,880

  1,290

  2,900

  2,880

  1,700

  England

  0–64

  2,590

  2,010

  2,100

  2,090

  2,720

  2,930

  1,660

  2,900

  3,570

  2,100

  65–74

  6,050

  4,510

  4,050

  5,250

  6,690

  6,520

  3,890

  6,430

  7,070

  3,100

  75–84

  12,900

  8,670

  8,900

  9,110

  13,450

  16,490

  7,410

  15,430

  15,770

  7,800

  85+

  11,470

  9,000

  9,960

  9,300

  14,940

  18,910

  8,770

  19,250

  19,250

  10,400

  All ages

  33,010

  24,190

  25,020

  25,750

  37,810

  44,850

  21,740

  44,010

  45,650

  23,400

  England and Wales

  0–64

  2,820

  2,210

  2,150

  2,290

  2,910

  3,050

  1,760

  3,130

  3,790

  2,300

  65–74

  6,410

  4,770

  4,230

  5,520

  7,120

  7,010

  4,260

  6,970

  7,490

  3,300

  75–84

  13,520

  9,340

  9,320

  9,690

  14,380

  17,540

  7,890

  16,360

  16,850

  8,400

  85+

  12,250

  9,490

  10,330

  9,900

  15,850

  20,130

  9,120

  20,450

  20,400

  11,000

  All ages

  35,000

  25,810

  26,030

  27,400

  40,250

  47,730

  23,030

  46,900

  48,520

  25,000

  1 Excess winter deaths are defined by the Office for National Statistics as the difference between the number of deaths during the four winter months (December to March) and the average number of deaths during the preceding autumn (August to November) and the following summer (April to July).

  2 Provisional.

  3 Rounded to the nearest 10.

  4 Provisional, rounded to the nearest 100.

  Obesity
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adults aged over 25 years were classified as 562W
  obese broken down 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 year in which figures are available. [30582]
  563W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: The available information is given in the table. The figures are taken from the results of the Health Survey for England for 2000, the latest year for which figures are available, in which 6,201 adults aged over 25 were interviewed. The Health Survey for England provides estimates of the underlying population figures but because of small sample size it is not possible to represent the figures as a number of the total population.

  Levels of obesity (body mass index over 30) of persons aged 25 years or over by region and sex

  Percentage

  Regional Office area

  Men

  Women

  All persons

  Trent

  24

  27

  26

  Northern and Yorkshire

  25

  22

  24

  West Midlands

  21

  26

  24

  North West

  21

  24

  22

  North Thames

  22

  22

  22

  South Thames

  22

  22

  22

  South and West

  23

  20

  21

  Anglia and Oxford

  21

  20

  21

  Source:

  Health Survey for England 2000

  Community Hospital, Lymington
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assistance(a) the southern NHS region and (b) the Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority are providing to New Forest primary care trust in preparing a business case for a new community hospital in Lymington; [31134]

  (2) how many times representatives of (a) Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority and (b) the southern region of the NHS have met representatives of New Forest primary care trust to discuss the business case for a new community hospital since the beginning of November 2001; and if he will make a statement; [31133]

  (3) how he will ensure that funding commitments given by (a) the southern region of the NHS and (b) Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority regarding a

  Waiting times for waiting list and hooked admissions for selected operations/diagnoses Patients resident in Somerset health authority, and treated in NHS Hospitals in England 1997–98 to 2000–01

  0–3 months

  3–6 months

  6–9 months

  9–12 months

  12–15 months

  15–18 months

  18–24 months

  Over 24 months

  Not known

  1997–98

  Coronary artery bypass graft

  47

  48

  28

  28

  9

  4

  1

  0

  1

  Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

  18

  11

  5

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hip replacement

  193

  123

  100

  76

  16

  6

  2

  1

  18

  Cancer

  2,921

  105

  13

  2

  1

  0

  0

  1

  390

  1998–99

  Coronary artery bypass graft

  56

  36

  41

  15

  6

  0

  1

  0

  6

  Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

  27

  24

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hip replacement

  187

  110

  146

  122

  32

  8

  2

  2

  22

  Cancer

  2,741

  100

  11

  9

  3

  0

  0

  1

  442

  1999–2000

  Coronary Artery Bypass Graft

  19

  7

  16

  11

  7

  9

  0

  0

  108

  Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty

  24

  24

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hip replacement

  147

  93

  119

  104

  56

  24

  7

  3

  6

  Cancer

  3,100

  204

  27

  8

  3

  0

  0

  0

  204

  564W
  new community hospital in Lymington, are met once the region and authority are abolished. [31135]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]: Officials from the south-east regional office have attended project board meetings on the new community hospital at New Forest primary care trust on four occasions between November 2001 and January 2002. Representatives of the health authority attended on three occasions during the same period. Representatives of the primary care trust also attended the health authority board meeting in December 2001 where the new hospital was discussed.

  Formal commitment to revenue funding from primary care trusts is a mandatory part of the outline business case (OBC) and full business case submissions. These will not be approved unless it is included. The current Lymington Project has not yet had its OBC approved, although the levels of revenue funding agreed with Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority for the earlier project are included within primary care trust's commitments.

  All appropriate guidance and support will be provided to the New Forest primary care trust throughout this process.

  Waiting Times (Somerset)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in Somerset health authority area were waiting more than(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) nine months, (d) 12 months, (e) 15 months, (f) 18 months and (g) 24 months for (i) heart operations, (ii) cancer treatment and (iii) hip replacements in each year since 1997; what are the latest available figures for waiting times for such operations; and if he will make a statement. [31306]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is given in the table. The latest available information is for the year 2000–01. Current waiting times for these operations will vary according to the hospital and consultant the patient is being treated by and the clinical priority of the patient.

  Somerset health authority and local NHS trusts have action plans in place to ensure that the maximum waiting time for operations is reduced to 15 months by 31 March 2002.
  565W

  Waiting times for waiting list and booked admissions for selected operations/diagnoses Patients resident in Somerset health authority, and treated in NHS Hospitals in England 1997–98 to 2000–01

  0–3 months

  3–6 months

  6–9 months

  9–12 months

  12–15 months

  15–18 months

  18–24 months

  Over 24 months

  Not known

  2000–01

  Coronary Artery Bypass Graft

  78

  20

  19

  15

  12

  42

  3

  0

  17

  Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty

  8

  9

  10

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Hip replacement

  144

  94

  104

  129

  111

  34

  15

  1

  4

  Cancer

  2,912

  185

  21

  3

  7

  1

  0

  0

  204

  Notes:

  Operation/diagnosis codes used are as follows:

  "Operations (OPCS4R codes)"

  Coronary artery bypass graft: K40–K46

  Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: K49–K50

  Hip replacement: W37–W39, W46–W48

  "Diagnoses (ICD-10 codes)"

  Cancer—C00–C97 (malignant neoplasms)

  Waiting time statistics from HES are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and waiting times for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment at a given point in time and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the waiting time as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

  Data for 1997–98 are adjusted for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data; 1998–99 to 2000–01 figures are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Correspondence
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he will answer the letters sent to him by Mr. and Ms Phillips of Fareham on 21 August and 1 October; [19194]

  (2) when he will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Fareham on 29 November 2001, concerning the letters sent to him by Mr. and Ms Phillips of Fareham on 21 August and 1 October 2001. [31689]

  Ms Blears
  A reply was sent on 29 November 2001.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Lester Report
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish a copy of the Lester report, referred to in paragraph 21 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in Regina v. Patel, Villiers, Sewell, Hutchinson and Ford Cases 2000 02566, 2000 02589, 2000 02591, 2001 02259 and 2001 03772. [31529]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  This internal review was made available to—and was overtaken by—the independent investigation carried out by John Rogues into the collection of excise duties (the results of which were published in July 2001 as CM 5239). As a consequence there are no plans to publish it.

  Northern Ireland Court Service
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she will publish the bilateral concordat between the Northern Ireland Court Service and the Northern Ireland devolved Administration. [33080]
  566W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I am pleased to announce that the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor have agreed the text of the concordat between the Northern Ireland Court Service and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee. Copies of the concordat have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and the text will be available on the Northern Ireland Court Service website.

  I hope that the concordat will assist in the continued development of the fruitful and co-operative working relationship between the Northern Ireland Court Service and the Northern Ireland devolved Administration.

  Defamation
  Helen South worth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he intends to consult on perceived abuses of defamation procedures. [33183]

  Mr. Wills
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has today written to the Law Commission asking them to undertake a scoping study to consider whether there are any problems arising from the use of intimidatory tactics, such as gagging writs and gagging letters. A copy of the terms of reference for this work has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Law Commission will produce a short paper by the end of March 2002. It will also undertake some preliminary work with a view to a possible further scoping study on defamation and other issues arising from publication on the internet.

  Concerns over gagging writs were originally raised during the passage of the Defamation Act 1996. The Government subsequently announced that they intended to consult publicly on the perceived abuses of defamation procedures. We have since reconsidered the scope of the project, in the light of the rapidly developing case law in the field, to ensure that it deals aptly with all relevant areas of concern, including those raised by advances in electronic communication.

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

Trees Act 1970
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to amend the Trees Act 1970 in the light of the House of Lords decision in the case of Delaware Mansions Ltd and others v The City of Westminster and, if so, whether they will include hedges in any proposed new legislation.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government have no plans to amend legislation in the light of the Delaware Mansions case. The Government remain committed, however, to new legislation to deal with the problems caused by high garden hedges. Although we were unable to find room for such legislation in the current Session, we intend to find a suitable Bill as soon as there is space in the parliamentary timetable.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he agree that the Delaware Mansions case clearly established that invasion of or damage to one's property by the roots of a neighbouring tree or hedge is definitely the responsibility of the owner of that tree or hedge? Therefore, will not the decision help people with that problem? However, what is the position when a tree preservation order is attached to a tree? That is the real essence of the case. Where does liability lie when one wishes to deal with a tree nuisance in those circumstances and applies to the council to do so, but the council refuses because of a tree preservation order? Is the tree owner responsible, or is responsibility transferred to the council that has refused the request?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in the circumstances that the noble Baroness has described, the position is clear—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Filkin: My Lords, for the second time this week, wait on—the position is clear. If the council refused permission for necessary work to be done to a tree or hedge whose roots were causing damage to an adjacent property, the council would be liable.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many people are labouring under a great nuisance because of high hedges? We have discussed the issue
342
before, but the answer that he has given today holding out the prospect of future legislation—really does not take us any further forward. Will there be legislation fairly soon, please?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, have asserted on a number of occasions: while these issues are not the most major issues of state, they cause substantial unhappiness to a reasonably large number of people. Precise figures on the number of people who are adversely affected are not available, but 10,000 is probably not an unreasonable estimate. The misery for some people can persist for a long time, but they are currently without an effective remedy. As the noble Lord knows, the Government have been clear about their wish to legislate, and a draft Bill is on the stocks to introduce when a suitable time is available. For obvious reasons, I cannot give a commitment for a Bill in this Session or the next, but I am certain that noble Lords will be keeping the primacy of such legislation before the Government's attention.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend will know that legislation under the Private Member's procedure was introduced in another place and became part of a procedural wrangle. If a short Bill were to be introduced in the other place in government time, is it not likely that it would go through on the nod?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, if the Government were able to introduce in government time the type of Bill that we have on the stocks, its prospect of passage in another place would be very substantially improved. However, I do not think that that is the issue. The issue is when the Government can find time to introduce such legislation, and whether another route might be effective.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that for some people in these circumstances obtaining insurance for their property is difficult and that the value of their property may appear to decrease? If the Government are not going to find time, is not one possible remedy for those affected to sue their own local council in order to get something done? We seem to be in a ridiculous situation and we are not moving forward at all.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I grant that in extreme cases, if one's neighbour is not prepared to operate reasonably and trim back an excessively high hedge, the saleability and sale price of one's property could be damaged. We are discussing this issue because, unfortunately, the owner of the affected property currently does not have a very effective remedy. As I said, the Government therefore believe that it is necessary to introduce the type of legislation that we have indicated when it is possible to do so. Such legislation would effectively make it possible to identify whether, in certain circumstances, the

343
infringement on the light of the adjacent property is substantial and measurable, so that the matter does not require a complex court judgment but can be dealt with almost mathematically.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I congratulate the Government
Noble Lords: This side!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we have already had the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
I congratulate the Government on the action that they have taken. Following very many years in which administrations were unable to tackle the issue, by producing their report on hedge abuse, this Government have brought a great deal of hope to a great many people. Will the Minister bear in mind that thousands of people affected by the issue rely on local or national government to protect them? They are the silent, and very often frightened, majority. Will the Minister also bear in mind that the legislation would perhaps result in peace between neighbours who often cannot see the wood for the trees?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thought that my inadvertent pun was venial but I am not sure that that of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was at all venial. The evidence from the consultation that the Government carried out in 1999 put it clear beyond doubt that a substantial number of people were seriously affected. Those who responded to the consultation expressed the strong view that local authorities should be given powers, which they do not currently have, to act in these matters. Most local authorities that responded also supported that view. Therefore, there is a body of opinion converging on the need for such a route. It is a pity that the Bill was talked out in the previous Session. There was clearly a filibuster with 100 amendments tabled on Report which made the Bill fall just before the election. The Government will produce a guidance leaflet which may help to avoid some new cases arising. The guidance leaflet will indicate what circumstances are considered unreasonable and how best to tackle such problems. But, clearly, that will not deal with the hard-core cases that have been going on for a number of years. That is why legislation is needed.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Lord say why, if it is so short of time, the other place is taking an extra week's holiday?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I can only conclude that it is because Members of the other place have been working so hard.

Foot and Mouth Disease: Inquiries
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their decision that the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should submit only written answers to Northumberland County Council's inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak was in the public interest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I have given the Northumberland County Council inquiry into foot and mouth disease substantial written information about the outbreak and have replied to specific questions from the inquiry chair, Professor Dower.
The decision for Ministers not to attend the oral hearings of the Northumberland and other inquiries was because we are co-operating fully with the official inquiries under Dr lain Anderson and Sir Brian Follett. The decision not to send officials to attend these local inquiries was primarily to prevent staff resources being diverted from the task of final eradication of the disease and its aftermath.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I fear that noble Lords will find the Minister's response inadequate and disappointing. I refer to the European Parliament inquiry. Will the Government submit written evidence to that or will they attend in person and give oral evidence? As I am sure the Minister understands, oral evidence comprises much more than simply answering specific questions. When discussing DEFRA's future, the Minister, Alun Michael, said that it would be appropriate for the Government to respond to those inquiries. In the end the Government will have to respond anyway.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, issues may be raised in those inquiries to which we shall need to respond. But the full government response will depend on the outcome of the official inquiries under Dr Anderson and the scientific inquiry conducted by the Royal Society. As regards the European Parliament, it is not a case of a committee of inquiry; it is a temporary committee of the European Parliament. We shall need to take a decision on that matter.
In addition, there are other parliamentary inquiries to which we shall afford the normal courtesy. I refer to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in another place which has reported, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. Ministers will fully co-operate with all those inquiries. There are also numerous local committees in addition to the Northumberland committee and a substantial number of other committees in different parts of the United Kingdom. It was much more sensible for the Government to take a decision to give evidence in total to those central inquiries. That we shall do. If we were to spend our

345
time attending every inquiry—I refer to those dealing largely with local issues—that would be a misuse of Ministers' and officials' time and effort.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Minister said that the central inquiries would have precedence or be given the government support that a public inquiry has not been given. The Minister has always said that speed is of the essence. As I understand that those inquiries are now due to report in June or July, will the Government consider not holding the Committee stage of the Animal Health Bill until those inquiries have reported?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, the answer to that question is "no" for the very good reason that should the disease, in spite of all the stringent precautions that the industry and government have put in place, reappear within the next few months, we need the powers contained in the Bill to deal with that situation. We may need other powers. A totally new approach to tackling the disease may emerge as a result of the inquiries. Those who oppose the Animal Health Bill are attempting to deprive the Government of powers to deal with an emergency in the interim. We shall have the outcomes of those inquiries by the summer and we shall address them. We shall also have the outcome of the EU inquiries and considerations at about that time. However, it would be irresponsible of the Government not to attempt to take the powers that might be needed should the disease recur. In my view it would be irresponsible of the Opposition to oppose our taking those powers.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, is it not a reality that one of the principal reasons why we are faced—as the Minister has told us—with a large number of separate inquiries is that the Government failed to set up a comprehensive inquiry in the first place?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I have frequently explained to the House, the Government have not set up the full judicial public inquiry that the noble Lord and others have advocated frequently in this House because we would not get the outcome of that inquiry in the six months' period that will be the case with the two inquiries we have set up. Such an inquiry would be hampered by people looking over their shoulders in fear of litigation. We have the example of many public inquiries which have taken years to produce a result for that reason. We do not want an inquiry which is hindered by people feeling that they cannot tell the truth in case litigation should follow. We want to get at the truth as rapidly as possible and we—both Ministers and officials—are prepared to co-operate fully with both of those inquiries. A public inquiry would be less likely to get at the reality of what we need to do.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I want to pursue the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about the Animal Health Bill. Will the Minister tell the House
346
why the Scottish Executive has made it quite clear that it does not require legislation immediately and that it is quite happy to consult with people before bringing forward any legislation? Why on earth cannot the Westminster Government emulate the Scottish Executive on this occasion?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Scottish Executive's legislative process is somewhat different from ours and it can afford the time—we should like to have such time—to engage in that consultation and still be able to move fairly rapidly towards legislation. The Scottish Executive has made it clear that it wants similar powers to those in the Animal Health Bill, but it has the luxury of consulting, whereas I only have the luxury of taking the Bill through this House.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, following on from the Minister's admirable intention to obtain the truth and his reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that staff would be occupied if they went to the Northumberland inquiry, how many staff at the Newcastle centre have been involved in making up the logs that were required for the European Union in order to prove that disinfection routines had been carried out? I believe that 460 farmers were written to because logs were not written up when they should have been—in March and April last year—and they are now expected to remember what happened during that period.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am a little surprised that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, returns to that issue. That is simply a matter of ensuring that the European audit—that is yet another inquiry into the disease with which we have to comply—has sufficient information about what happened in the early stages of the disease. Clearly, staff in the Northumberland offices have been required to participate in that. I remind the House, however, that Northumberland was declared an FM D-free county on 14th January. All levels of veterinary and administrative staff are making a considerable effort to deal with the aftermath of the disease until after the main stages of the inquiry that the county is holding.

Discrimination against Women
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they plan to sign the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government believe that the United Kingdom already complies with the CEDAW convention and that we have effective legislation against sex

347
discrimination, including the relevant provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Government are committed to reviewing the question of whether citizens should have an avenue of complaint to the United Nations human rights committees. However, we consider that the Human Rights Act should be given a chance to bed down properly before conducting such a review.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer, although I am a little doubtful about how much further forward that takes us. In relation to other human rights problems, did I understand her to say that it is not just the accession relating to the protocol for CEDAW but the accession relating to existing protocols that is under discussion? Does she agree that those who have already signed up to the protocol may feel that their systems are sufficient to guarantee individual, women's or racial human rights? They nevertheless signed up to ensure that their citizens can ultimately appeal to the United Nations. Is it not important that the United Kingdom should continue to sustain and support the United Nations and give our citizens their full rights of appeal on human rights issues?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness that Her Majesty's Government intend to continue to support and sustain the United Nations. We have done that in a plethora of ways. The noble Baroness rightly said that the CEDAW protocol is one of four protocols that will be considered; the others are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention against Racial Discrimination and the United Nations Convention against Torture. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor indicated on 1st November 2001 that there would be a review in relation to those four protocols. We hope that by the end of February we will be able to announce a date when that review will take place.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, as I understand it, the United Kingdom initially played a leading part in pushing for the protocol. Why are we now so loath to implement it ourselves?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the truth, as the noble Baroness knows, is that we already have extensive legislation that deals with virtually all of the issues that are covered by CEDAW. She will also be aware that CEDAW came into consideration only in 2000. Before that, the main priority was rightly given to the implementation of the Human Rights Act. When I cast my eye over the matters covered by CEDAW, I noted more than 28 different areas of law in which we have already legislated. It is important to consider our position in relation to this matter. Eight European countries have not ratified; they have
348
signed. Noble Lords know that before we take any such course, we consider the issues very carefully. We intend to do that if and when the review comes about.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, while I welcome the Minister's encouraging reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and recognise the Government's good record on human rights and equality, is she aware of the disappointment felt by women's organisations throughout the country about the lack of action in relation to this convention? Can she assure us that the Government are seeking an early resolution to the problem?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly reassure my noble friend that the Government are aware of such disappointment. I assure her that the Government's commitment to equality and women's issues is as strong as it always has been. She rightly said that we have a proud record. We certainly do not seek to besmirch it by any tardiness. As I said, we will review the matter and there will be a full opportunity for extensive consultation on it. I am sure that my noble friend and many other colleagues will want to contribute to any such review.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while actions speak louder than words, others will ask, "What do we actually achieve by signing the protocol?"? Is it not more sensible for us to concentrate on actively promoting our human rights agenda?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is a strong view, and the noble Baroness was right to say that even if we signed and ratified the protocol, the committee would be able to make recommendations that would not be binding on us. All of the conventions to which we are currently party are binding on us; that is also the case with our legislation. The noble Baroness rightly said that primary importance should be given to our Human Rights Act. That is not to detract from the potential importance of the protocol. That is why we said that we will review it and do so thoroughly.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that this is not simply a case of establishing whether we have carried out a number of the legislative provisions that are required in relation to sexual and gender discrimination'? Does she also recognise that the UK's full acceptance of CEDAW would be an example to a number of countries whose legislation is wholly unsatisfactory? In the light of that, will she assure the House that she will move as urgently as possible towards the full ratification of the protocol?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly accept that that is an encouragement to others, and I understand the symbolic nature that many sought to underscore. All of that is understood. However, she will know that this country is not simply interested in

349
symbolism; we are interested in action. We intend to undertake the review, look at the matter frankly and openly and then do something that will, I hope, make things better for the women of this country and encourage others to do the same.

Asylum Seekers: Country of Origin Reports
3.30 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider setting up an independent unit to consider the safety of countries to which refugees may be returned.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, we have already undertaken to do so. The decision was announced to Parliament by way of a Written Answer on 5th April 2000.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for that reply. I believe that we all realise that the Home Office has a very wide range of responsibility. We respect that. But will the Minister remind the Home Office that it is not the Foreign Office?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Foreign Office is the Foreign Office. It works for the British Government and not for foreign governments. I cannot add to the Answer that I gave. The Home Office announced nearly two years ago that it would consider having independent documentation of the in-country reports. We are satisfied with the quality of the reports, but a research effort has been undertaken and we shall shortly publish the results.
Our own in-country reports are quoted by all western governments and, indeed, by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Therefore, I do not accept that they are defective. Nevertheless, in April 2000 we undertook to consider whether there was a role for an independent documentation office to produce those reports. They do not contain Home Office policy and they do not contain Foreign Office policy either.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with respect to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is the noble Lord aware that people claiming to be refugees who are ordered to be returned are so ordered because it is felt that they are not refugees? Therefore, there is a contradiction in this matter.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not believe that that is so. Some people found not to be refugees are not ordered to return because we have a policy of not returning people to certain countries. Therefore, it is not the case that every asylum seeker who fails to become a refugee is returned. It depends on the policy
350
regarding the country from which people come. It is well known that we do not return people to certain countries.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, is it not the ease that a significant number of asylum seekers and those who organise asylum seekers come from member states of the Council of Europe? Bearing in mind that those member states all have administrations, laws and constitutions which are compatible with democracy and the practice of human rights, is it not reasonable to suggest that such refugees do not merit acceptance? Would it not be appropriate for our representatives in both the Council of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in Strasbourg to pursue that matter more vigorously?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Our country reports would make clear that it was acceptable to return people to countries that have rule of law and human rights legislation, but it would depend on the merits of the case. As I said, every case is judged on its individual merits. I believe that that is the safest way to operate. However, as my noble friend said, we must take into account the countries of the Council of Europe. It would be ludicrous it we were not able to return people to such countries; in that respect there would be a complete failure of the requirements relating to their membership of the Council of Europe.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whether one is looking at an independent unit to consider the safety of countries or whether one is considering the reports from the Foreign Office, the matter that should really concern the House is the speed of government action and the firmness with which they act? The decision as to whether or not a country is safe is crucial, and, regrettably, the speed of action was too slow in the case of Zimbabwe.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not accept that. We provide to asylum caseworkers country reports, published twice a year, together with bulletins. We also plan to publish the bulletins. Home Office staff also have access to the Foreign Office, to our hiah commissions, to embassies and to people on the ground. They have the best available information on which to make decisions in respect of asylum cases. On the evidence provided thus far, I simply do not accept that we were too slow in relation to Zimbabwe. We were right to make the decision when we did. It would be wrong for me to go into individual cases at present, but it is true that there is a serious problem in Zimbabwe. However, I do not accept that the decision was made too late.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I want to return to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lorcl Dixon-Smith, because I believe that the Minister may wish to reconsider the assurance he has just given. It is the case that at the time when the Foreign Secretary was pressing for the suspension of Zimbabwe before

351
the Commonwealth heads of government, people who had close links with the opposition parties were still being returned to Zimbabwe. Can the Minister consider again whether a more rapid and widespread country assessment might be made, drawing on many of the extremely useful unofficial, as well as official, sources now available? As the Minister will appreciate, for the individual this can be a matter of life and death.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, indeed, and it is because there are unofficial sources that we cannot fully disclose from where we obtain the information. If we were to do so, it would cause those sources problems in the countries concerned. The country to which the noble Baroness referred is a particular case in point. To the best of my knowledge—I stand to be corrected—there is only one documented case of a person having been returned to his country and suffering a problem as a result. However, the opposition party removed that person to safety in Botswana. With all the acres of media coverage, we know of only one such case. We have yet to receive information regarding other such cases. The greatest pressure and publicity related to a person who was returned to South Africa, not Zimbabwe. The media constantly refer to Zimbabwe, whereas in that case the returnee went back to South Africa.

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
3.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Earlier this month, we published our response to the Kennedy report into events at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. The response to those events marked a turning point for the National Health Service.
In today's world, people expect services to respond to their needs. Increasingly they want to make informed choices about how to be treated, where to be treated and by whom. The NHS Plan, which we published 18 months ago, set out our vision for the future of healthcare in this country, where patients are in the driving seat and able to make informed choices about their care, and the NHS is decentralised with a plurality of providers operating within a framework of clear national standards regulated independently.
The NHS needs two things: investment and reform. Today, investment in the NHS is growing faster than ever before: it is the fastest-growing health service of any major country in Europe; there are 10,000 more nurses than one year ago; last year was the first in 30 years when there were more, not fewer, beds in hospitals; the biggest hospital building programme in NHS history is now well under way; in the past year, 800 GP surgeries have been modernised; the NHS now has the world's best smoking cessation services;
352
prescribing of cholesterol-lowering drugs has risen by one-third; and waiting times for cancer and cardiac care are falling.
With regard to reform, the NHS is today implementing the biggest programme of change in its 50-year history. Our 10-year reform programme is showing plenty of early promise, but we do not pretend that we have solved every problem. We have not. But, from talking to staff, I believe that there is an increasing recognition of the money and the changes coming through.
The Secretary of State for Health recently expanded on a number of key themes from the NHS Plan which will give patients greater choice over services. There will be a changed relationship between the NHS and the Government. A one million-strong service cannot and should not be run from Whitehall. In order for patient choice to thrive, it needs a different environment in which there is greater diversity and plurality in local services which have the freedom to innovate and respond to patient needs.
With our reforms we want to keep the National Health Service but change it to a values-based system in which different healthcare providers—in the public, private and voluntary sectors—provide comprehensive services to NHS patients within a common ethos: care free at the point of use, based on patient need and informed choice and not on ability to pay.
As Kennedy identified, it was a lack of clear standards and clear lines of accountability that underpinned the Bristol tragedy. In our first term we established a clear national framework within which local NHS services can operate. We have come far in four years. There are new national service standards for cancer, heart disease, mental health and care for older people. There is greater transparency over local service performance.
There is a new legal duty of quality and a new system of clinical governance to enshrine improvements throughout the NHS. There is the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) evaluating new treatments. For the first time the NHS has an independent inspectorate, the Commission for Health Improvement. With the NHS Modernisation Agency, there are now new systems for when things go wrong and more help to learn from what goes right. More focus than ever is being given to strengthening professional self-regulation.
Today, with that national framework in place, in our second term the centre of gravity is shifting decisively to the NHS front line. The task of managing the NHS is becoming one of overseeing a system, not an organisation. In future, the Department of Health should focus on outcomes and strategy and set local providers free to take care of the day-to-day management of inputs for themselves, informed and invigorated by strong patient and public involvement, with Ministers remaining accountable to Parliament for the overall performance of such a system.

353
That is the long-term strategy. To bring it about, a considerable degree of legislative change is required. The Bill enables day-to-day management of the health service to devolve to 28 new strategic health authorities in England. Those strategic health authorities will oversee the work of local NHS trusts and primary care trusts. Their chief executives will account both nationally and locally for the performance of those local health services. Franchises for running those strategic health authorities will be let, based on performance against an annual delivery agreement with the Department of Health.
The real power and resources in the NHS will move to the NHS front line. From April this year, locally-run primary care trusts, involving professionals and patients, will be up and running in all parts of the country. Within a few years they will control 75 per cent of the total NHS budget. They will be able to choose from which hospitals care is commissioned. The best hospitals are likely to be those where they too practise the philosophy of devolution and empowerment.
Clause 1 places a duty on the Secretary of State to set up strategic health authorities to cover the whole of England and provides for him to make regulations which contain requirements to consult on changes, such as names or boundaries. Clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to establish primary care trusts to cover the whole of England. Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to delegate directly to primary care trusts the exercise of any functions conferred on him by health legislation; for example, the duty to provide hospital accommodation under Section 3 of the National Health Service Act 1977. Clause 4 amends primary care legislation to take account of the establishment of strategic health authorities and of the transfer of certain functions to primary care trusts. Clause 5 requires primary care trusts, rather than health authorities, to recognise local representative committees of family health service practitioners.
The same devolutionary principles will apply in Wales. The Bill enables the National Assembly to establish local health boards to exercise functions as it may direct. That arrangement will replace the current one of health authorities directing local health groups. Clause 22 gives effect to the National Assembly's commitment to ensure joint working in the development and implementation of local strategies for health and well-being by placing each local health board and local authority under a duty to formulate and implement a health and well-being strategy for the area. Clause 9 provides for local health boards to be funded directly by the National Assembly for Wales.
Clause 7 provides for the funding of strategic health authorities, mirroring the existing provision for the funding of special health authorities. Clause 8 provides for primary care trusts to be funded directly by the Secretary of State and allows performance payments, such as from the NHS performance fund, to be made direct to primary care trusts. Clause 10 amends the definitions of primary care trust expenditure, so that it
354
can be treated in the same way as health authority expenditure is currently, as regards non-cash-limited expenditure.
For the first time, the NHS now has an independent inspectorate, the Commission for Health Improvement. CHI, as it is known, provides advice and information on clinical governance arrangements, conducts a rolling programme of local reviews focusing on the implementation of clinical governance and through the capacity for rapid investigation, helps the NHS identify and tackle serious or persistent clinical problems. It also conducts national reviews on the implementation of national service frameworks, on topics such as services for coronary heart disease, and examines the take-up of guidance issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
Through the Bill, CHI will have a new function of inspecting individual NHS trusts and other service providers offering NHS care against a set of agreed and published criteria. Where CHI finds evidence of unacceptably poor quality services, or of significant failings in the way that a body providing NHS services is being run, it will be able to recommend that special measures are taken. In future, CHI will also make an annual report to Parliament on its overall findings on the quality of services provided to NHS patients, as a mark of its independence.
Clause 11 amends Section 18 of the Health Act 1999 to clarify that the duty of NHS bodies to maintain arrangements for monitoring and improving the quality of healthcare provided should also include arrangements relating to the kind of environment in which patients receive healthcare services. Clause 12 extends CHI's remit to include carrying out reviews of any aspect of healthcare services. It requires CHI to publish a summary of each report it makes and provides that the Audit Commission must consult CHI on its value-for-money studies as part of better co-ordination of regulation of the NHS.
Clause 13 gives CHI the function of carrying out inspections of all bodies providing NHS services. It requires that CHI must report any discovery of healthcare of an unacceptably poor quality, or of significant failings in the way the body is being run, either to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, whichever is appropriate. Such a report may recommend that special measures be taken.
Clause 14 amends CHI's constitution, giving it the right to appoint its own chief executive and providing that CHI must make an annual report about the quality of services to NHS patients to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly. The Secretary of State will lay this report before Parliament. It also enables CHI to set up an office for information on healthcare performance to collect and analyse data and carry out performance assessment.
Many of our reforms involve government acting on behalf of patients in order to influence how the NHS relates to the patients it is there to serve. They are about changing the culture of the NHS to put the needs of its patients first. But a service designed around the

355
needs of patients has to hand over more power directly to them. The Bill contains reforms to give patients a greater role and a stronger say in the NHS and in matters that affect their health. These provisions are the product of over 18 months of debate in Parliament, through public consultation, reaction to the Kennedy report and in the media.
Patients forums will be set up in every NHS trust and primary care trust, with membership drawn from local patients, carers and representative organisations. Their main role will be to provide direct input from patients to NHS trusts and PCTs into how local NHS services are run and could be improved better to meet patient needs. Each patients forum will have a representative on the trust board.
An independent commission for patient and public involvement in health will provide support for patients forums, facilitate local co-ordination and cooperation between patients forums and promote the involvement of the public in decisions affecting their health. It will also report to the Government on how these new patient and public involvement mechanisms are working.
The independence of the system for patients and public involvement is critical to its success. During the Bill's passage in the other place, we have listened to suggestions about ways to make the system even more independent. We have strengthened the new commission's independence by removing the Secretary of State's power of veto over the appointment of its chief executive and staff. Patients forums' independence has been bolstered by changing their accounting arrangements so they will now receive their funding via the new independent commission rather than from their local NHS trust or PCT. The patients forums' role was also strengthened by giving them an explicit power to refer matters of concern to local authority overview and scrutiny committees.
Clause 15 requires the Secretary of State to establish a patients forum for each PCT and NHS trust in England and sets out its functions. Clause 16 gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations requiring NHS bodies, and others which own premises where family services are provided, to allow authorised members of patients forums to inspect those premises. Clause 17 requires patients forums to submit annual reports to the forum's trust, the Secretary of State, the new commission and the relevant overview and scrutiny committee of the local authority. Clause 18 enables the Secretary of State to make supplementary provision in relation to patient forums. Clause 19 establishes the new commission for patient and public involvement in health. Clause 20 provides for the abolition of community health councils.
Clause 21 relates specifically to prison health services. It makes provision for the NHS and the Prison Service to work more effectively together to fulfil their overlapping functions. It will enable them to pool their resources and to delegate their functions to one another. These arrangements parallel those set out in Section 31 of the Health Act 1999 to allow for closer working relationships between NHS bodies and local
356
authorities. Clause 21 also introduces an explicit duty of co-operation between the Prison Service and the NHS to secure and maintain the health of prisoners.
Part 2 of the Bill is about the regulation of health care professionals, who may of course work in the NHS or elsewhere. A healthy system of self-regulation is essential for the kind of devolved NHS that I have described. As Professor Kennedy pointed out, it is also a necessity if patients are to feel confidence in the system.
For those reasons we said in the NHS Plan that we needed modernised and more accountable professional regulatory arrangements to offer better protection for patients. We also want faster and more transparent procedures and meaningful accountability. The regulatory bodies are already responding in constructive ways to government proposals, but more needs to be done to ensure that modernisation continues.
The Bill therefore takes forward a recommendation of the Kennedy report by introducing a new council for the regulation of healthcare professionals. The council will promote the interests of patients and other members of the public. Working with the regulators in a light-touch, consensus-building style as far as possible, it will build and manage a new framework for self-regulation. It will be independent of the Government. It will report directly to Parliament. It will consist of 10 representatives of patients, the public and healthcare providers and nine regulators; and it will oversee all the statutory regulated bodies.
Clause 23 provides for the establishment of the council. Clause 24 sets out its powers and duties. Clause 25 provides underpinning powers for the council and places certain duties on the regulatory bodies to ensure that the council can operate effectively. Clause 26 provides for the Secretary of State to set up a scheme for the council to investigate complaints about the regulatory bodies. Clause 27 provides that—in rare cases where the council considers it to be desirable for the protection of the public—it should be able to refer a regulator's final decision on a fitness to practise case to the High Court and its equivalents across the UK. We anticipate this power being used extremely sparingly.
The Bill deals with other aspects of professional self-regulation. Clauses 28 to 32 create consistency among the appeals procedures of all the regulatory bodies, while Clause 33 makes a small addition to our powers in respect of the reform of regulation of the pharmacy profession to bring them more into line with those for other professions.
Finally, Clauses 34 to 40 deal with miscellaneous provisions which underpin the rest of the Bill. Most notably, Clause 34 enables the Secretary of State to amend legislation relating to the health service in England and Wales by order if he thinks that such amendment will assist the consolidation of that legislation. The 1977 Act, itself a consolidation of previous legislation, has since been amended by some 57 further Acts. It is our intention to consolidate this legislation into a single new Act at the earliest suitable opportunity.

357
In conclusion, we envisage a fundamentally different kind of NHS; not a Whitehall-run structure but a values-based system. This Bill underpins that systern—where government no longer run a nationalised industry but instead oversee a system of care; where greater diversity and devolution are underpinned by common standards and a common public service ethos; where there is greater diversity of provision and more freedoms for local services to improve care for patients; where treatment is free and provided according to need wherever it occurs; where there is a new common purpose shared across health sectors and a relentless focus on better health outcomes and less inequality; and where patients can make informed choices about their services and about their care.
This Bill may not be the last word on legislative change, but it delivers important legislative changes that are essential to underpin our strategy for the NHS. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
3.58 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, once again it falls to me to thank the Minister for introducing this Bill in his customarily clear and comprehensive way. That, I have to say, is about as far as I can go with expressions of gratitude. The Minister will, I hope, accept that on those occasions when I find myself in agreement with the Government, I have no difficulty in giving credit where it is due. When, as with this Bill, I find almost nothing to approve of in what the Government are doing, I have no hesitation in saying so in the plainest possible terms. I am afraid that the Minister will not find much comfort in what I am going to say about the proposals before us today.
When the Government were first elected in 1997, they set about a programme of reform of the NHS which consciously arrogated power back to the centre and away from individual doctors and managers. A command and control mentality and an overbearing ministerial style have been the hallmark of this Government's stewardship of the health service, to the extent that there is almost no manager, no doctor and no nurse who has not found their professional lives directly affected by target-setting directives and reporting requirements imposed by the Secretary of State.
The process of change initiated by the Health Act 1999 and continued in the Care Standards Act 2000 and the Health and Social Care Act 2001 has been sold to the public and the medical profession as implementing a grand vision of improved and more co-ordinated services for patients. As these changes, and the upheaval that goes with them, have been accepted and absorbed by NHS staff, we have at least had the comfort of ministerial assurances about the future: the importance of avoiding further wholesale upheaval; of respecting the wishes of local stakeholders; of preserving professional self-regulation; and of facilitating patient choice. This Bill
358
blows most of those assurances out of the water. It is a Bill with huge ramifications for the health service, the biggest reform for 25 years. At one and the same time it will impose seismic organisational change from top to bottom and provide a massive distraction from the pressing problems that the health service needs to solve if the key elements of the NHS Plan stand any chance of being delivered.
The Minister has painted the Bill as a decentralising measure. I would be the first to cheer if I thought that that claim had real validity. But it is somewhat rich to make such a claim when the Bill does nothing whatever to reduce the ability of the Secretary of State to issue directions, instructions and targets to the NHS at local level. In fact the Bill contains 58 powers for the Secretary of State that are gained, retained or enhanced—58 ways, in other words, for him to issue orders. The devolution of budgets to PCTs would indeed be a good thing if PCTs could be assured of the freedom to spend the money in accordance with local priorities. But what do we see? The Secretary of State will have the power to set the budget of every PCT. He can set resource limits as well as cash limits. He can set performance rewards according to his own rules. He can hold money back if PCTs fail to perform to the targets of his choosing; and with the abolition of health authorities as currently configured, he will now be able to do all this not at one remove but directly. For good measure, strategic health authorities will be able to direct PCTs on any of their functions, whether or not those functions are delegated. We can call that decentralising if we want to be idiosyncratic, but the reality for the health service will be very different. Indeed, much of this entire Bill is direction-making writ large.
During our debates on the Health Act 1999, serious concerns were raised on all sides of the House about the dangers of any compulsory transition to PCTs. Amendments were carried—later reversed in another place—which would have prevented that happening. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, finally secured my acquiescence when she gave the following assurance:
"It is important to say at the start that it is no part of the Government's agenda to impose primary care trusts on the service … We want measured change, progression to trust status, driven locally, based on local views. That is why the Secretary of State will be able to establish a trust only after local consultation".—[Official Report, 25/02/99; col. 1268.]
Similar assurances were given in another place. The Bill breaks those assurances.
I do not suppose that the Minister is particularly concerned about that, but let me tell him that when noble Lords expressed their worries about enforced progression to trust status, they had in mind one thing above all: staff morale. It beats me how even this Government can have brought themselves to treat with such contempt the wishes and wisdom of thousands of general practitioners and NHS staff who are concerned above all else to ensure the performance of their prime duty—that of looking after patients.
I do not know whether the Minister has received, as I have, representations from doctors and managers, including the British Medical Association, about the

359
risks involved in this headlong rush for change. The recruitment of suitably qualified managers and clinical staff is already proving a very difficult task in many areas of the country. Many well qualified staff are leaving the health service.
Those PCTs that already exist are new and largely untested bodies. In many cases, they are not adequately resourced to perform their current role. For them to take on all the functions listed in the NHS Plan—modernisation, commissioning, partnership with local authorities, health improvement plans, performance management, involvement with the public, and the rest—will be a very tall order indeed. For PCTs that have yet to be established, the task and the risks to patient care are truly mammoth. How much more will that be so if PCTs are saddled—as we suspect that they will be—with the outstanding deficits of health authorities? In a survey conducted by the National Primary Care Research and Development Centre and the King's Fund, three quarters of chief executives questioned said that the reorganisation would in their opinion delay the delivery of the national plan.
And what of the Government's protestations that they want to see a more patient-centred service? Once again, they have brought to Parliament their dog-eared proposal to abolish community health councils. Never have they stated in words of one syllable why they seek to do that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I listened with pleasure to much of what the noble Earl said about the properties of the court and Treasury party. Can he tell us whether a future Conservative government would abandon any of the powers about which he is now complaining?
Earl Howe: Certainly my Lords, but the time for me to set out the Conservative Party's stall lies some time in the future, as I hope the noble Earl would accept. My task today is to criticise the Government. I am doing so on the basis of well established Conservative philosophy.
I was referring to community health councils and the Government's proposals. Everyone agrees that the status quo for CHCs is not an option. But the great merit of CHCs is that they are a one-stop shop. As such, they are easily understood by the public. They are also independent of government and the NHS. Patients therefore have confidence in them. By contrast, the staff of patients forums will not be independent of trusts. They will be inside the loop. No longer will the public have any sort of community-led watchdog in the field of healthcare. As I regret that I have said on many previous occasions, the arrangements for scrutiny, monitoring and complaints work, far from being a one-stop shop, are to be fragmented between a whole raft of different bodies: overview and scrutiny committees, patient advocacy and liaison services, the independent advocacy service and patients forums. Can the Minister tell us how much all that will cost compared to current arrangements?
360
Nor will there be any mechanism for providing an informed overview from the public perspective of local health issues. The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, whose job it will be to oversee patient involvement, will have its chair and chief executive appointed by the Secretary of State. What signal does that send out to patients? What will people think of the commission when they find out that it has no formal line of accountability to local communities? What will people think when they realise that Ministers have insulated themselves from the voice of the patient by removing the right enjoyed by CHCs to refer contested decisions to the Secretary of State? Patients forums will not have the same rights to be consulted as do CHCs. Neither the new commission nor patients forums will be able to engage in the kind of pro-active lobbying that CHCs now undertake—often very effectively.
Those are the reasons why we have opposed, and still oppose, the abolition of community health councils. Considered against that background, the Government's rhetoric about greater patient empowerment frankly rings rather hollow. I shall tell your Lordships what else rings hollow. It is impossible to count how many times we have been reassured by Ministers that the Government respect and believe in the concept of professional self-regulation. We believed those assurances.
During the past couple of years, Ministers have encouraged the General Medical Council to reform itself. They have re-shaped the regulatory arrangements for other healthcare professionals. All that is positive. Yet now, what do we find in the Bill? A new council for the regulation of healthcare professionals is to be given powers to overrule and control the policy decisions of the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and other regulators.
Supervision is one thing; direction is another. That power of direction represents a watershed. It is a power that effectively brings professional self-regulation to an end. The ability to overrule the professional majority on the GMC is one that should be given only to Parliament. Instead, it is being given to a body that is nominally independent but on which government appointees will always be in a majority.
The Government may say, as I understand they now do, that the regulatory bodies will not have their work interfered with other than on an exceptional basis. But if we consider these proposals in conjunction with those for a new medical education standards board, which may also have powers of direction over the regulators, it is not going too far to speak of this Bill de-professionalising doctors and other healthcare professionals. The GMC, for example, will no longer have sole control over the medical register, nor over its own ethical code, nor over fixing its rules. It will in effect become a sub-committee of the proposed new council.
I find that disturbing, and at the Committee stage we shall have much more to say about it. We shall have much to say, too, about other provisions in the Bill

361
that are causing concern: the creation of the new strategic health authorities and the uncertainty and upheaval that goes with that; the financial consequences flowing from the organisational changes. about which my noble friend Lady Noakes will have more to say later; and the altered role of the Commission for Health Improvement.
Meanwhile, we should look at the Bill in the round. The Government would do well to pay heed to the comments of 304 chief executives, who were canvassed in a survey by the Health Service Journal on the consultation document Shifting the Balance of Power. One of those chief executives had this to say:
"This is my sixth reorganisation in a thirty year career in the NHS. I have always responded positively to change previously. However these proposals are a recipe for disaster—a blend of lack of insight, ineptitude and disregard for staff at all levels".
The Bill before us is one that shows up the Government at their worst. For me, at least, it leaves a very bitter taste behind it.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be now read a second time, at end insert "but this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government are bringing forward this Bill before a full legislative response to Professor I an Kennedy's report of the Public Inquiry into Children's Heart Surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary (l 934- 1995) is possible; and before the review of the 10 Downing Street Forward Strategy Unit into National Health Service structures has reported; and urges the Government to postpone the passage of the Bill through this House so that a comprehensive and considered Bill can in due course emerge."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the terms of the Bill in his usual concise fashion. I am afraid that I shall be no more positive than the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was in his well judged speech.
The Minister is aware that, on these Benches, we supported, for the most part, the Health Act 1999, the Care Standards Act 2000 and the Health and Social Care Act 2001. We were also enthusiastic about the NHS Plan, agreed by the Government with a wide range of stakeholders. As regards this Bill, however—as the Minister will have seen from the Motion in my name—we are unenthusiastic to the point of hostility, in company with a large number of managers and clinicians in the health service. We see the Bill as a half-baked attempt at reform, not properly thought through, premature at best, damaging at worst, to the NHS's ability to deliver the plan.
I turn first to the proposed new NHS structure. Since the general election and the realisation by Ministers of only four or so years to go before the Government face the electorate on their management of the NHS, health Ministers have gone into initiative overdrive. We have initiatives on private sector involvement and on overseas treatment for those needing hip and cataract operations. We have the introduction of concepts such as franchising
362
the management of underperforming hospitals to successful managers and the private sector We have the initiative on the creation of foundation hospitals for the top-performing NHS trusts. And, of course, we have the so-called decentralisation proposals in the Bill.
The Secretary of State and his colleagues clearly have great faith in the ability of new structures to deliver better services. The Minister mentioned culture. I say to the Minister and his colleagues that culture change is far more important in effecting change and in effecting successful delivery than changes in structure. To date, whatever the rhetoric, with the steady erosion of the independence of senior NHS management, the Secretary of State's real signals for decentralisation seem to be set at red, not green. The NHS is sliding into a blame culture.
Perhaps the Minister can answer the central question. What areas of service will actually improve if such restructuring takes place at this time? Many of us are concerned about public health. It is far from clear who will deal with disease control and school health services, let alone whether bodies at local level, such as primary care trusts, will have the skills and systems in place to take responsibility in that area.
There are grave doubts generally throughout the health service as to whether PCTs will be ready for their new role. How measurable will their objectives be? What capacity will they have to deliver? Will GPs play their full part? Will PCTs engage with the public? Before those questions are answered, there will inevitably be risks for patient care implicit in the restructuring. In any event, PCTs could have got by decision of their health authority the powers that are conferred by the Bill but at a pace dictated by local conditions, skills and circumstances. How realistic is it to expect £100 million to come out of management costs in the course of reorganisation? Reorganisation always costs more, as the Conservatives found to their cost every time.
Perhaps the most fundamental objection to the structural provisions in the Bill is that they are likely to be added to or changed in short order. That is the reason for my amendment to the Motion. We have seen Professor Kennedy's excellent report. With one or two exceptions, it is clear that Ministers have not had time to prepare legislation in response to his recommendations. Mr Adair Turner, formerly of the CBI, now working with the Number 10 forward strategy group is considering NHS structures for the future. He will report later this year. Surely. he will make suggestions for change. So we can expect yet another NHS Bill from the Government, helping to demoralise NHS staff further and prevent them getting on with the job. Target fatigue among NHS managers is prevalent enough, without our adding to their woes. It is a Maoist approach to management—bring on new reforms before the old ones have taken effect and dig up reforms before they have had time to take root.
When I come to the provisions relating to the Commission for Health Improvement, I get an acute sense of déjà vu. When CHI was originally created, we

363
on these Benches strongly supported it but argued that a single system to measure the performance of acute hospitals—whether in the NHS or the independent sector—should be put in place. Likewise, when the Care Standards Bill went through the House, we argued strenuously that CHI should assume responsibility for independent acute hospital inspections. On each occasion, Ministers argued that there were fundamental differences between management and regulation and that our proposal was wholly unacceptable.
I hope that the Minster has the decency to blush, now that Mr Milburn has changed his mind. On 17th January, he told us that there would, over time, be organisational integration between CHI, the social services inspectorate and the Audit Commission so that health and social care services are subject to a common set of standards irrespective of whether they are provided by public, private or voluntary organisations. Just so, my Lords. The conversion was worth waiting for, even if it did happen at the point at which the Care Standards Commission was about to come into being.
We would like to see that conversion translated into action and into amendments to the Bill, although we do not wish to see the Audit Commission swept into the same basket. That said, we also want to ensure that, in its newly authoritative role, CHI is responsible for inspection and performance management measurement and is genuinely able to set the quality benchmarks that it sees fit—not simply those determined by Ministers in Richmond House—in the same way that the Audit Commission can on value for money audits. That is the role recommended by the Kennedy report. If Ministers genuinely want to shrug off charges of micromanagement—to which they are extremely sensitive—they should see the wisdom of that course of action.
There is also the thorny issue of community health councils. Many of your Lordships will remember the battle we had during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill over the abolition of CHCs. A compromise over the powers of new patients' councils might have been reached if the general election had not intervened. There was some cause for optimism when Hazel Blears produced her proposals last September, and there is no doubt that she took on board some of the criticisms made of the previous proposals. Since then, we appear to have gone backwards. The proposals in the current Bill are worse than those in the Health and Social Care Bill. There are at least four organisations due to take over from CHCs: patient advocacy and liaison services, patients forums, the independent complaints advocacy services and local authorities for scrutiny. The functions of CHCs will be fragmented. No single body will have a local overview of health services, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out, the benefits of the one-stop shop provided by CHCs will be lost.
There are many points of uncertainty surrounding the scrutiny role of local authorities. Forums are not independent of trusts, and their membership is
364
potentially too much under the control of Ministers. They will have limited powers, even by comparison with CHCs, and will not even have staff of their own.
There are many objections to the proposals. I could go on, but time is short. The objections relate to the commission and the forums. As if that were not enough, the cost of the new system has been estimated to be 10 times that of the current system. What kind of reform is that? Scotland and Wales are retaining their CHCs: why are English health Ministers so determined to abolish them?
I turn to prisons. One of the great regrets about the Bill is the failure by the Government to amalgamate the prison health service with the NHS. All close observers of the prison health service know what the right solution is. It is simply not adequate for the Prison Service and the NHS to continue to pass the parcel with prisoners who have health needs. That is particularly true of mental health.
My noble friend Lord Avebury unearthed the particularly disquieting fact that the NHS still appears to be some 500 secure psychiatric beds short. So it is completely unable to meet the needs of the Prison Service, despite the provision of those extra beds having been a target in the NHS Plan to be accomplished by April 2001. The Commons Health Committee made the same point some time ago. What assurances can the Minister give that funding for the necessary number of beds is in place and that they will shortly be provided?
I come to Wales—would not we all want to come to Wales?—and the provisions in that regard will be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Thomas. He may lift the gloom on these Benches by having something positive to say on Clause 22.
Finally, I turn to the council for the regulation of health care professionals. When this proposal first emerged from the early findings of Sir Ian Kennedy's Bristol report, I was baffled. I could not see what usefully could be done by the new council except something ethereal such as a co-ordination job—anathema to those of us who believe in effective leadership and management and something which quite adequately could be done by the health department itself. As the Bill took shape, however, it emerged that the Government's proposals are worse than that and positively dangerous for the future of professional regulation in this country.
The Secretary of State now has ranged against him a combination of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the GMC, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the new shadow bodies of the NMC and Health Professions Council, the General Dental Council and the other health regulatory bodies. And of course they are right. The key to the objections, expressed strongly in Committee and on Report in the other place, is the power of direction in Clause 25 to the professional regulatory bodies to change their rules. It is not even a reserve power to be used in exceptional circumstances: it is a general power of direction.

365
The proposed council will have a majority of lay members. The regulatory bodies, such as the GMC, NMC and Health Professions Council, will have professional majorities. Effectively therefore the Bill is taking an axe to the principle and practice of professional self-regulation. Furthermore, why should the professional regulatory bodies report to Parliament through the proposed council? It will be a quango appointed by Ministers.
Neither those bodies, nor indeed the new medical education standards board not covered by this Bill, should be directly or indirectly the creature of Ministers. We on these Benches firmly look to see that these bodies continue to be independent but publicly and transparently accountable.
In conclusion, our opposition to this Bill in its current form and our wish to see it delayed and heavily amended by the Government before proceeding further is not because we are pessimistic about the future of the NHS. Indeed, we share the desire—the presumed desire—of the Secretary of State to decentralise. But it must be in the right way at the right time. We must make sure that the devolved structures can bear the weight put on them, particularly when it comes to PCTs. When we decentralise we must consider how it fits in with the future regional structure. We must also simplify. We cannot do that simply by putting in place another tier of management and calling it decentralisation.
The BMC recently issued a chart showing the sheer complexity of the NHS and professional governance system which is both in place and due to take effect in respect of performance monitoring. It includes 21 different elements, including appraisal, the Audit Commission, clinical audit, clinical governance, CHI, continuing professional development, the GMC, intermediate procedures, litigation, local performance advisory groups, the medical Royal Colleges, NHS complaints procedure, the NHS Ombudsman, the National Care Standards Commission, the National Clinical Assessment Authority, NICE, national service frameworks, National Patient Safety Agency, patients forums, professional advisory panels and revalidation. For academic doctors the list would be much longer.
Every time a problem is identified Ministers propose a new body. The Council for the Quality of Healthcare is a classic case drawing together and—we have it again—"co-ordinating" numerous bodies. The system of governance is increasingly oppressive even to the most excellent of health professionals and must be simplified if we are going to make professional life half tolerable.
We also believe strongly in the benefits of building on the National Health Service framework and the national plan. We wish to see a strong system of community and patient representative bodies with the power and resources to provide independent advocacy for patients.
The King's Fund report of the splendidly ubiquitous noble Lord, Lord Haskins, points the way in the right direction towards greater autonomy of the NHS,
366
hospital trusts and more choice for patients. Its proposals merit a full debate. The Government should take time to consider it and adjust their plans accordingly. One commentator called the proposals in the Bill "a wonderful substitute for change". If we have NHS staff scurrying around implementing these structural changes there will be no time to deliver what really matters—services for the patient.
The Government have been extremely sensitive to taunts of micro-managing the NHS. They should now step back and devise reforms to the N1-IS which genuinely represent a move to local autonomy. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be now read a second time, at end insert "but this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government are bringing forward this Bill before a full legislative response to Professor Ian Kennedy's report of the Public Inquiry into Children's Heart Surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary (1984–1995) is possible; and before the review of the 10 Downing Street Forward Strategy Unit into National Health Service structures has reported; and urges the Government to postpone the passage of the Bill through this House so that a comprehensive and considered Bill can in due course emerge".—(Lord Clement-Jones.)
4.26 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, this Bill introduces substantial changes to the way the NHS in England operates. Most of those changes should improve the delivery of primary health care and are to be welcomed. But there are also risks associated with such major changes and with this rather abrupt introduction of changes.
Before going further, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the Wirral and West Cheshire Community NHS Trust, and as ethnic health adviser to the North-West Regional Office of the NHS. I shall confine my comments to Part 1 of the Bill.
Primary care trusts, particularly those coming into existence in April this year, will not he ready to implement their new functions; for example, service planning, which has been the responsibility of health authorities but will be abolished by April this year—two months from today. Senior management personnel and board members of some PCTs have still to be appointed. It is therefore unlikely that PCTs will be functioning optimally for several months, if not a year or more.
My impression is that primary care trust management will be engrossed with human resource issues because more staff will be needed to perform the new functions and arrangements for better healthcare of local people. Furthermore, GPs who are independent of the primary care trust administration will need time to adjust to the changes heralded by the Bill. Can the Minister assure local people dependent on the services of new PCTs that the quality of their healthcare will not deteriorate because of the changes?
Another of my concerns relates to funds for the running of the new PCTs. Some of the money will have to be transferred from health authority budgets while

367
some will come from community trusts. Some, if not most, NHS trusts are in financial deficit at this time of the budget cycle. How soon after the beginning of April will those new funds be available to the PCT?
I turn to the Commission for Health Improvement. I declare an interest as an ethnic health adviser to the commission. The Commission for Health Improvement has been in existence for almost two years. It has been inspecting, reviewing and reporting on NHS acute trusts, mainly hospitals. But that task is not complete and some hospitals have not been visited. The new arrangements aimed at strengthening the CHI and its independence give the impression that the commission has been fulfilling its current remit. But what evidence is there that the CHI has been effective in its work? Who has, or is, reviewing the performance of the CHI? Who will monitor if the recommendations made by the CHI on an NHS trust are being implemented?
Finally, I turn to patients forums. They will have powers to inspect and monitor NHS trusts and PCTs as well as represent patients and the public. It is clear that those appointed to patients forums will require training. The establishment of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement is essential to supporting patient forum functions. Will the commission also provide training for forum members?
With the abolition of community health councils, a pool of experienced and trained people will be available to assist patients forums. Will former CHC board members and personnel be encouraged to help in that way? Those are some of the current concerns to users of the National Health Service in the north west region. I hope that the Minister will take serious note of them.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, while I have considerable sympathy for the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and listened with care to his proposed amendment, I cannot agree that the House should jettison the Bill at this time. Although there is much concern with some aspects of the Bill, there is too much at stake to put it back.
Primary care trusts are an important element of government policy to devolve responsibility for the health service away from the centre to where patients are to be found. PCTs will be responsible for some 75 per cent. of the NHS budget but have much to learn, as they prepare to take on a critical role—and there is a danger that they will not be quite ready.
One anxiety centres on the need to ensure that specialised, so-called tertiary services—neurosurgery, renal dialysis, transplantation and the like—will not be relatively neglected by PCTs. After all, they are responsible for a relatively small number of patients and few among them will need such care. Populations of I million or more are needed to contract rationally for specialised care. My noble friend the Minister will be aware of that potential problem but it needs careful attention if important services are not to be neglected.
368
The other worry about PCTs arises from their responsibility for public health, preventive medicine and, in particular, protection against infectious disease. That role is critically dependent on alert surveillance of outbreaks of infection, isolating the sources and effective eradication. There may be a hiatus in the take-up of those responsibilities as more pressing matters take precedence in the trusts' busy lives.
That danger will be magnified by the simultaneous changes in public health surveillance proposed in the Chief Medical Officer's recent report. Part of the radical proposals is a new health protection agency to take over the Public Health Laboratory Service along with a number of other bodies. I express an interest as chairman of the board of the PHLS.
As the agency takes over, the PHLS will hand over many of the microbiology laboratories that form its network of surveillance throughout the country to individual NHS trusts. In the long run, that may or may not be a good thing but the transition must be handled cautiously, so that a dangerous gap is not left in infectious disease surveillance—which would coincide with a learning gap at PCT level. I hope that the Department will make clear how PCTs will be supported in their efforts to take on public health responsibilities and make sure that there is some coordination between that aspect and supporting laboratory and other services for which the PHLS is currently responsible.
When the Commission for Health Improvement was established, it was intended to be supportive—to help trusts achieve a high-standard, quality service—as well as to have an inspectorial role. In fact, the commission has acted largely in the latter mode and its critical inspectorial role is to be strengthened. While that may seem appropriate, it leaves a gap in the standard-setting and helpful role that trusts need the CHI to play. Some non-governmental bodies try to do both. Again, I declare an interest as chairman of the board of the Health Quality Service—a charitable organisation that sprang out of the King's Fund. The HQS and one or two others could fill the gap if it were made possible for them to work more closely with the CHI. They have already done some of that in standard-setting efforts but much more could be done—and that would be welcomed by trusts, which are often overwhelmed by inspection.
As to the proposals for professional regulation, I express an interest from my murky past in postgraduate medical education, as a past president of the Royal College of Physicians and chairman of the Specialist Training Authority when it was established in 1996.
It is hard not to be supportive of the Government's aspirations for professional regulation that is open and transparent, so that health care professionals are accountable to their patients and the public and they in turn will be reassured about patient care. All that seems entirely appropriate but, in aiming at public accountability, the proposals are in danger of deprofessionalising and denigrating doctors, dentists,

369
nurses and others on whose dedication we all depend. Instead of public accountability, which is highly desirable, we are heading towards state control, which is not.
What seems to have united the medical profession—an extremely rare event—is a sense of oppression and suppression. The deans of medical schools, British Medical Association, deans of colleges and General Medical Council all support the idea of the council for the regulation of health care professionals that brings together all the regulatory bodies so that they can share good practice and promote co-operation and the interests of the public and patients. Where they remain united is in their concern at the proposal that the council will have the power to direct a regulated body to change its policy or rules, even where that body felt that to be wrong in the public interest.
The council, with its lay chairman and lay majority largely appointed by the Secretary of State, would also be in a position to examine a case on appeal previously judged by the regulatory body and decide whether it should be referred to a court of law. That leaves room for a large number of appeals on cases of considerable complexity to a body barely equipped to deal with them—unless there are clear criteria and constraints. The council should not be in the position of second guessing regulatory bodies. The power to direct and intervene must be carefully controlled and should preferably be in the hands of Parliament, through the Privy Council. That would provide a safeguard for patients and the professions.
Ministers have been in constructive discussions with the medical and other professions and I encourage that, in the hope of a solution that satisfies the public and the professions. However, another concern centres on the prospect of control of professional regulation by the Secretary of State of the time. Unfortunately, not all Secretaries of State are as supportive of the professions as the current office holder. Occasionally, Secretaries of State have been known to behave in a knee-jerk sort of way. That is, of course, in the past.
Professional regulation very much depends on the involvement and co-operation of the profession, whatever it might be. The medical profession's regulatory body should be answerable to Parliament and the Privy Council, not to a government or Secretary of State of the day. The Government should think carefully about establishing a body to oversee the regulatory authorities that is largely appointed by and answerable to the Secretary of State. I strongly urge a line of accountability that leads to Parliament.
There is yet another regulatory function of the GMC, which relates to medical education. The GMC fulfils this role through its education committee which itself is responsible and accountable directly to the Privy Council, and is therefore somewhat separate from the main regulatory function of the council. The committee oversees undergraduate education in the medical schools by ensuring that the curricula and examinations match up to the criteria it publishes, which are available, and it does a pretty good job at that.
370
It is unclear to me whether it is intended that the new council, the overarching body, will have a role here and, in particular, whether it will expect to be able to direct the GMC in its educational activities. If it did so, where would it gain its legitimacy and knowledge for so doing? The thought of a Secretary of State of the day laying down his or her ideas about what medical education should consist of fills me with horror. I expect that it would fill most patients with horror too.
That fear, I am afraid, is not eased by recommendations about the control of postgraduate medical education and training, which have emerged in parallel with this Bill and which show the direction in which the Department of Health may seem to be heading. The proposals, described in a discussion paper on a medical education standards board, a new body, have a number of attractions. They strengthen the regulatory function for postgraduate education for specialists and general practitioners in a number of ways and are to be welcomed. But it is the governance arrangements for the new board where the problems arise.
Noble Lords should know that it is the medical royal colleges which publish all the detailed curricula and training programmes for all the different specialties, and set and run all the examinations and appraisals. The Royal College of Physicians, of which I have some knowledge, runs training programmes for some 28 different specialties and oversees training through its system of postgraduate tutors in hospitals around the country. It ensures that hospital trusts have the right facilities and staff to train specialists. The whole process requires enormous effort and is very labour intensive, but it works. In the UK we have specialists who are among the best trained in the world.
I wanted to spell that out because 'we are heavily reliant on the colleges. When it became necessary for the United Kingdom to have a legally responsible body to oversee postgraduate education under EU regulations in 1996 or 1997, it was clear that the only really competent bodies to form such an entity were the colleges. That is why we were able to persuade the government of the day to set up a new statutory body, the Specialist Training Authority, of which I became the first chairman. Furthermore, the full name of that body recognised the role of the colleges—it was arid still is the Specialist Training Authority of the Medical Royal Colleges.
It has had, of course, lay representatives since the beginning, but it has a majority of college representatives because we had the belief that they were in the best position to judge what should go into the training of a specialist. Yet now it is suggested that the new board might have a lay chairman and a lay majority, although there does not appear to be any logical reason why that should be necessary when considering the role it has to play. Again, ii places postgraduate medical education in direct line to the Secretary of State of the day.
So here we have both undergraduate medical education through this Bill and postgraduate education through the associated paper I have

371
described largely out of the hands of the medical profession and into the hands of a lay majority and on to the government of the day. That is rather like suggesting that the Monetary Policy Committee be largely made up of and chaired by those lacking in monetary or economic expertise, and although that may have its attractions, it is not guaranteed to produce the best results.
I do hope that the Government will think again about the need for what looks like political control of medical education. Of course those concerned with education should be influenced by the views and opinions of the public and patients—I believe that they are—but having the power to direct education is undesirable and shows a disregard for the judgment of professionals which is unwarranted. It will lead to disaffection of professionals and, in the end, patients will suffer. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will consider very carefully the implications of the power to direct and how it is intended to be used, and in the need for the Secretary of State's direct involvement, instead of the much more desirable alternative of final responsibility residing with Parliament and in the Privy Council.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I listened with some sympathy to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, about qualifications for participating in any function—in particular with regard to my participation in this debate, because they are not very apparent. It has been some 25 years since I was shadow Secretary of State for Social Services and some 35 years since I was first a shadow spokesman on that subject in 1965. I did have some dealings with healthcare during my professional life at the Bar.
I have to confess that, having listened to the two noble Lords who have just preceded me, I feel rather like an under-qualified spaniel in a den of Daniels, and I speak with some hesitation. Having said that, and having listened to what they had to say, following on the powerful speeches made by my noble friend and namesake Lord Howe and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, my concern about this proposed legislation has hugely increased. I have never heard a Bill greeted with such alarmist responses—I do not use the word pejoratively—as indicated by the speeches, couched in very measured terms, made by the two Lords who know most about the subject. It illustrates why we are rightly concerned about the way in which this legislation has been prepared, is being introduced and is to be carried forward.
One topic I do know something about is that of community health councils. They were proposed and founded during my time in the Heath Cabinet as Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs. I announced their proposed existence in my first speech in that capacity in December 1972 to the National Council for Social Services. At the same time we announced the establishment of the Health Service
372
Commissioner. Institutions of that kind, like many others in this country, acquire an authority, a familiarity and an experience so that people know where to go to lodge their complaints. Indeed, people still talk about their doctors as their "panel doctors". The panel was invented in 1911 by Lloyd George. People certainly talk about community health councils as one of the friendly beacons in the service. Thus I am concerned about it. The Association of Community Health Councils has stated:
"The proposals replace a system of proven efficacy that was easily understood and accessed with a highly complex and confusing structure".
That, I am afraid, is the judgment which comes through on so many aspects of the Bill.
I wish to develop that into a criticism of the way in which the Government are attacking and approaching the whole subject of healthcare reform. The Bill is illustrative of what we have come to recognise as an endless marathon of monolithic upheavals. No sooner is one over than another commences. The Minister, of course, has enjoyed the comfortable experience of delivering his Second Reading speech in which all the complex elements of this legislation have been condensed into smooth-running, consecutive sentences. Nothing is better calculated to persuade a Minister that he is doing the right thing than a well-prepared Second Reading speech. but that is profoundly misleading.
Another characteristic of this Government's approach is the multiplicity of acronyms: PALS, NICE, CHI. My first dog was called Chui, the Swahili for leopard. Although one becomes accustomed to trotting out such acronyms so that they sound reassuring, surely the Government have to learn that attractive acronyms are not an alternative for effective action. However, in order to be as fair as I intend to be, I have to say that they are not the first Government to have fallen into this trap. Perhaps I may cite one example which I think is correct. The National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973 replaced the governing bodies of the metropolitan teaching hospitals. Keith Joseph was the Secretary of State in charge, and no one could have been more sincere and well-intentioned. However, it was a grave mistake. Had that not been done, then the process of reorganising the teaching hospital structure of the metropolis years later, that bedevilled Secretaries of State in both parties, would not have happened because a process of self-adjustment would have taken place between those bodies. The programme for replacing the community health council is of exactly the same quality.
As I have said to the House, if one goes into any medical staff room or teachers' staff room in any institution in the country and asks, "Now what would you like us to do?" the unfailing response is, "For God's sake, leave us alone". I am reminded of a story, which I do not think that I have told the House, of a Minister on a typically busy tour asking a chap at work in a room in some institution, "My good man, how long have you been working in this institution?" The chap replies, "As far as I can remember, I have been

373
working here in 17 different departments for 43 different Ministers but always in this room". That is the pattern that is being reproduced now.
This legislation fails to tackle the central recommendation of the King's Fund report, summed up in one sentence:
"creating distance between Government and the National Health Service".
I add to that: and between politics and the National Health Service. I take no pleasure in the pattern of debate of the past week or two in which the war of Jennifer's ear has been succeeded by the war of the Whittington Hospital. We need somehow to work together—this House is well capable of doing so—to design a common approach to these difficult problems.
The King's Fund report states that the changes which are necessary should be designed to create the right environment for the National Health Service to take responsibility for reform, to help the development of local leadership. It should be a new organisational form to encourage independence and innovation. I give the Government the benefit of the doubt. They may still think that that is their objective, but the extent to which they are failing to approach it is overwhelmingly convincing. They are doing almost exactly the opposite.
The specific proposal of the King's Fund for a separate health service corporation may not be necessarily the right approach. If one is to do that, one needs something much closer to a genuinely detached pattern of devolution. At page 14, the King's Fund report states:
"The new bodies would be able to manage the delivery of their services in any way that meets their … obligations. They would have the incentive to innovate in order to improve health care. They could be given the power to generate and use financial surpluses to re-invest and reconfigure services, and the opportunity to raise additional finance on the private market. They might manage their own workforce in respect of pay and conditions of service".
Those will be genuinely independent organisations developing their own policies from which we learned a great deal as t hey went along. But that can be achieved only if we have a more fundamental area of agreement between the parties.
My second point—I apologise for having made points which are less related to the Bill—relates to the fundamental question on the funding of healthcare. It is now a truism that in western democracies other than the United Kingdom—France, Germany, The Netherlands, Austria and Italy—the percentage of GDP being spent on healthcare is at least 2.5 or 3 per cent higher than in this country. It is equally true that the gap depends upon the additional resources coming from the private sector. In this country perhaps 1 per cent comes from the private sector. In other countries the average coming from the private sector—I leave the United States on one side—is two-and-a-half or three times that amount. The truth has penetrated to the busy mind of our Prime Minister. He recognises the need to raise the total to that achieved by other countries.
374
It is not just a question of raising the total of resources. I want to see an expansion of the role of the private sector: those resources would arrive in a fashion which would increase the flexibility of the healthcare institutions. If one designs systems which attract private sector contributions, one gives the people working in the service a real chance of believing that they can influence their own working environment. It is not just a cash question: it is a much bigger idea.
A year or two ago, the Economist summed up the issue in this sentence:
"The idea of giving the private sector a big role in public services is contentious in Britain. In the rest of Europe, it's commonplace".
Hence we have the headline of the Economist,
"Socialism in one country".
That is the sadness.
If it is not too patronising for an "antique" to do at this stage, I commend the leaders of my own party for their current willingness to examine and study what is going on in neighbouring European countries. There is much to be learned and I am delighted that the Conservative Party is leading that search. I congratulate in particular my honourable friend Dr Liam Fox on his willingness to keep an open mind. He has developed a maturity in his approach to the subject since I spoke for him in his battle against David Steel in one of the Border constituencies 100 years ago. His mind is open to new thinking; he is determined that it should not be closed. That is how he needs to approach the issue.
That, I am afraid, is difficult for the party opposite. Nye Bevan was right in his book, In Place of Fear, when he determined that the Palace of Westminster looked like an institution devoted to "ancestor worship". If ancestor worship were a feature of this palace, it is overwhelmingly a feature of the Labour Party's attitude towards the health service.
There are two respects in which one might make that point more substantively. How have we in this country become so hung up on measuring health efficiency by reference to waiting lists? In 1965, in a book called The Conservative Opportunity, I wrote an essay entitled The waiting list society. That was a true insight into our country at that time. In most places waiting lists have disappeared, but not in the health service. Noble Lords may have seen an article in the Parliamentary Monitor for July 2000 in which Mr Jeremy Laurance, health correspondent of the Independent, having toured Europe, concluded:
"Appointments were easy to make, waiting lists were nonexistent (or of no consequence in British terms)".
That is the first hook we have to get ourselves off.
The second hook is an inhibition from allowing any payment to take place at the point of service for any aspect of the service. Yet the King's Fund diagnosis is clear. It states:
"Greater opportunities for patient choice should also result in a more dynamic and responsive system".

375
Patient choice affects the system as well as the patient. It continues:
"If health care is to serve the needs of patients, then their choices must play a significant role in shaping the way health care providers understand good-quality health care".
We have a plain example before our eyes of how that is happening in this country. In 1984, under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, the then government introduced legislation to allow opticians to advertise to patients and for patients or customers to go where they liked for their spectacles. If one walks today down any high street in the land, one finds competing optical suppliers alongside premises renting video tapes and providing travel services. More than half the population requires optical services. The vast majority is being served in that way by a thriving market place. Eye tests are still free—that is partly thanks to the action of the present Government—for children under the age of 16, those on low income levels and pensioners. There is a framework there.
The pattern of servicing provided by that series of organisations is totally different. I picked up recently this attractive pamphlet from Specsavers—I go there quite often—stating,
"unlimited choice for NHS customers for just a few pounds more".
It sets out how the vouchers provided can be topped up to extend further choice. So a principle of great importance has been developed there. It is part of our healthcare provision which has been transformed without a revolution.
In an article published in May 2001, Professor Timothy Congdon said:
"A case could be made that the supply of health services under the NHS is the closest approach to the command economy found in a Western liberal economy".
Others have been more blunt. They have described it as the only Stalinist service in the world. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, somewhat aptly described the pattern of reform in the service as being Maoist.
Should we need encouragement to move in the direction of radicalism, it is worth looking at a weekly paper produced in Beijing, the Beijing Review. In the edition for 11th December 2000, the cover story is, "The Price of Health", and the lead line states:
"No one wants to pay unreasonable costs and be poorly treated when seeing a doctor. The answer? Reform the hospital system".
It contains a very interesting article describing the spread of competition in the supply of drugs to hospitals in China. The concluding paragraph states:
"There is no doubt that the reform of China's medical service system will break up monopolies, introduce competitive mechanisms, provide quality service at relatively low costs and curb irrational increases in medicine prices".
I do not necessarily commend the Chinese health service as a model—far from it. Nor even would I commend the market for ophthalmic care as a model in itself, although it should be studied very carefully. But we should be at least as ready to contemplate change and to discard ideology as are our friends in China. We should approach the subject with as much
376
thoughtfulness, as much breadth of vision and as much courage as the Chinese. We must begin to have the courage to discard ideas—not only those which are 50 years old but those which are even 10 years old. The Government's Bill now before us does not tackle the subject in anything like that way.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, having heard the broadsides that have been fired from this side of the House towards the Government, and having listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, describe the structures proposed as highly complex and confusing, I feel sorry for England.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has gone before me in saying that I will bring good news from Wales. However, perhaps I may start with a quibble—that is, that in looking at the Bill I have to dot around from Clause 6 to Clause 9 to Clause 22 to find the provisions relating to Wales. As I have said on many previous occasions when dealing with other Bills, as we are not allowed to legislate with primary legislation in Wales, why cannot we have a part of the Bill specifically denoted as the "Welsh provisions"?
The Bill is decentralising. The provisions for Wales show the green light, to adopt the metaphor used by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. The benefits of devolution are to be seen in the way in which the matter has been discussed and debated by all sides in Wales. It is not surprising that I speak in support of the Liberal Democrat/Labour partnership government in Wales, but many more than ourselves have been consulted on the provisions.
In February last year the Assembly published a plan, Improving Health in Wales, which was followed in July by a consultation document, "Structural Change in the NHS in Wales". There was then a three-month period of consultation and 345 responses were received. As a result of that, the Minister in Wales, Jane Hutt, deleted several of her original proposals. She accepted criticisms from many professional bodies and, in particular, after negotiations with the partnership in the Assembly, she accepted the Liberal Democrat proposal that she should strengthen the Specialist Health Service Commission for Wales. Being a plain-speaking lawyer, as is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and never cloaking anything in arcane language, that produces a Welsh acronym to beat anything England can provide, which can be pronounced as "SHSCW". That beats CHI, NICE and so on. We prefer to call it "Iechyd Cymru", which means "Health Wales".
It is now accepted that the commission should be able to commission tertiary and acute specialist services on an all-Wales basis; that it should be on an arm's-length basis and not under the control of the NHS directorate; and that it should provide advice, guidance and co-ordination to the local health boards which are to take on a new responsibility and role in Wales.
Far from being complex, the structure in Wales is now simplified, decentralised and devolved. The National Assembly at the head will strengthen its

377
planning and strategic capacity for the discharge of its health responsibilities and will establish, as arms of the Assembly. three offices in north, mid-west and south Wales so that the functions of the Assembly will not all be Cardiff based.
It is proposed to transform the local health groups which were set up as sub-committees of the area health authorities in 1999, to abolish the existing area health authorities and to create 22 local health boards, which will be coterminous with the local authority areas. The purpose of it all is to place real power in the hands of the general practitioners, the community nurses and the health workers, who, as my colleague in the Welsh Assembly, Peter Black, put it, know what people require. The people that patients see most will decide how NHS money is best spent. In Wales we will maintain the community health councils because we believe that they have a very positive role to perform.
So, instead of having a whole series of bodies, we will have the National Assembly at the top, the local health boards very close to the people, and an all-Wales commissioning body, which will be able to commission specialist services not only from Welsh hospitals but from English hospitals as well.
I look at a finger which was broken in the service of your Lordships' House when I was playing rugby football at Twickenham against the other place. That was dealt with at the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Memorial Hospital at Gobowen, which is in England, where I had the most excellent service. Those are the kind of cross-border services that we have in Wales.
In addition to that, because there will be 22 local boards coterminous with the 22 local authorities, Clause 22 of the Bill sets out provisions which require there to be a joint strategy by each local health board and each local authority to ensure the health and wellbeing of the public in their particular area.
Historically, major progress in improving health has been made 1hrough local government. Improvements in education, housing and social service provision have led to increases in health and in preventing illness-possibly having more impact than the National Health Service itself. The public health functions of the area health authorities are also to be separately organised on an all-Wales basis.
And so, with a simplified structure—but with the devolution of responsibility to the patient, to the GP and to the nursing services on a local basis—we are looking forward in Wales positively to the results of this legislation when it is carried through. It is perhaps unfortunate that the provisions relating to England fall so far short of what my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones would like.
In Wales, we are seeking to remove inequalities between the various areas. We do not have good health in Wales historically. I am sure that these provisions will help to improve it.
5.9 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I must declare a deeply personal interest as an NHS jobbing clinician in Wales who was on the wards this morning.
378
I also have interests in education at undergraduate and postgraduate level in medicine and as president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. That is my background of interests.
The Minister outlined the changes that have rightly been embraced by professionals to improve healthcare. No one would decry efforts at such improvement. The Kennedy report has been pivotal in bringing about much-needed change. My own University of Wales College of Medicine has already examined its undergraduate curriculum to make sure that we are consistent with the recommendations, but it will be years before those students graduate. The problem is that time is needed for change.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly pointed out, the profession is exhausted. Professionals are exhausted by the deck chairs on the "Titanic" being moved round—as some have said to me—and by the sense that all the cards are up in the air and will land again. But where are the real resources to underpin the service?
The workforce is changing. More than 60 per cent of our graduates are women. That workforce needs to be accommodated if we are not to lose it. Staff retention is a major problem, yet creche facilities, flexible working and improved working conditions, which will be crucial to maintaining the workforce, do not feature in any of the background descriptors to the legislation. We need skilled professionals to deliver clinical care. The patient needs to be seen by highly trained skilled professionals, however the management structures are arranged around them. If they are emotionally exhausted and worn out, they will not perform as well as if they know that they are supported in the structure in which they know their role. I fear that we have much to learn from Europe.
Voluntary care providers will welcome some of the measures in the Bill. I work as a voluntary provider for Marie Curie Cancer Care. There is a sense that adequate refunding for the core services that many voluntary sector providers now give to NHS patients is long overdue. At least 50:50 funding for core services must be a priority.
Reorganisation comes at a cost at management level as well. That cost is loss of corporate memory. When a health authority is dispersed, the corporate memory of that group is lost. The people know the areas of weakness and the areas to watch and monitor. There is a real fear that those areas of weakness, which cannot be written down and will not be handed on by word of mouth for fear of slandering one area of the healthcare profession or another, need to be monitored closely. Those healthcare bodies in the health authorities are currently getting their heads round doing some of that.
Health authorities in Wales currently undertake 369 statutory functions, but it is not clear which of those will be devolved to which bodies. I should like a list to clarify who will have responsibility for each of those functions. Cinderella services, such as child protection and learning disabilities, need to be co-ordinated across large areas for many reasons. There is a real fear

379
among those working in the Cinderella specialties that they may be squeezed out and forgotten in the re-jigging of commissioning.
Public health has already been alluded to. It is very important in communicable disease control. Our recent legislation against terrorism showed that it is now also part of our national defence. It is unclear how it will have sufficient independent co-ordinated levers to bring about the important health improvements that we need to establish equity.
Equity in healthcare provision is a major challenge. The social problems of two adjacent areas in Wales, such as Blaenau Gwent and Monmouth, are very different. When illness or accidents strike, every person deserves early diagnosis and then treatment. There is concern that one group may view the commissioning of services in a different way from another group. Those secondary care services not often used by any individual local health board area but none the less crucial to the health and welfare of the whole area of south east Wales may not be adequately listened to and funded. Some 75 per cent of the budget is in the hands of primary care services, but I see no evidence that that will save money from secondary care. Early diagnosis is much needed and primary care standards need to be driven up, particularly—sadly—in some areas of Wales. We have some of the best and some of the worst of primary care.
Early diagnosis will put up healthcare costs. Let me give a simple clinical example. A person with cancer of the oesophagus who is diagnosed early will need complex and expensive investigations, probably chemotherapy, then surgery and intensive care postoperatively which will have to be done in a centre where enough such operations are carried out for all the staff to be highly skilled. That person may well also need radiotherapy followed by monitoring and further investigation. One hopes to have added years to life as well as life to years, although that person will almost inevitably still die of the original cancer of the oesophagus some time later.
The sad reality is that if the same patient received poor care at the outset, it is much cheaper. Once patients are diagnosed and the diagnosis is confirmed, they are past the point of any treatment and they go on to die. They consume hospice care services as well. The social cost has never been taken into account in any of the equations. Driving up standards in primary care and ensuring early diagnosis are crucial, but no one should think that money is to be saved on secondary care.
I have alluded to the critical mass of expertise that is needed. There is a tension between local delivery of services and having enough concentrated expertise in one place to develop the skills and support the high-tech equipment that is needed. The strategic overview in planning is crucial. Planning was lost from healthcare some time ago. Strategic overviews are welcome, but I remain uncertain as to how influential they will be in ensuring that we move forward with the best of science and that we underpin research to allow our medical science to move forward. The noble Lord,
380
Lord Thomas of Gresford, alluded to the strategic role in Wales. I sincerely hope that we manage better strategic planning than we have had in the past and that we beat England in our strategic planning.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, questioned the cost of reorganisation. Have the overt and hidden costs of the reorganisation been calculated and have the benefits that will directly accrue to patients also been quantified?
I am not against change—I have been a catalyst for change. However, I worry that experienced but exhausted and demoralised people in the workforce are being asked to learn new roles and to adjust very rapidly. They have been trying to drive up standards and monitor the standards and audit the care that they are giving. The monitoring of changes will be essential. Some of the widened responsibilities for the Commission for Health Improvement may be welcome. Perhaps this is an opportunity to bring together the National Care Standards Commission and the Commission for Health Improvement rather than planning it at some future date so that the amount of inspection that services are subjected to becomes more streamlined and the recommendations are clearer.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, eloquently outlined the deep concerns about the council for the regulation of health care professionals. I shall not go over those concerns, but I fully endorse and appreciate the clarity with which he explained them to the House.
The monitoring and evaluation of the changes will be crucial. We are creating a natural experiment. There will be at least three—and probably four—different healthcare systems developing in England, Wales, Scotland and, subsequently, Northern Ireland. It is essential that information technology is agreed and data collection streamlined so that meaningful comparisons can be made. Sadly, we do not have meaningful baseline data. Currently, different trusts work with different IT systems, which are different from those used in primary care, while different primary care groups work differently from other primary groups, all using different coding systems—and all those differ from the voluntary sector. Lots of data are being collected, but meaningful, sophisticated comparisons cannot be made. We need a strategic overview of the type of sensitive meaningful data that we collect—not just simple activity data, which is what hits the headlines all the time. Activity data will never be met.
Finally, this Bill represents yet another reorganisation of the 1977 NHS Act, and it incorporates changes to the 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 Acts. To be able to read and understand this complex and fundamental reorganisation, I endorse the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that, given modern word-processing technology, we could have the whole aggregated legislation published in one volume for England and in another for Wales. It would mean that someone simple like me could pick up the document and read it in its entirety instead of trying to rummage through what must be a lawyers' tea party but what, for a clinician, I am afraid, is a nightmare.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, there is no doubt that the Bill before us is most important—so important, in fact, that I certainly could not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which seeks to delay its passage through this House. As other speakers have said, the Bill will bring about the most radical changes in the NHS since 1974. This is the main reason that I support it strongly. It puts patients more at the heart of the service than they have ever been before.
The NHS is a huge organisation, employing well over 1 million people and treating more than 20 million patients each year. I am one of the many to owe my life to it. As the Minister in another place said, it is inconceivable that the sort of care that we want to be available could be delivered by the structures that currently exist, given the pressure on services, the introduction of new technologies, and the speed at which things change in the delivery of medical services.
These then are the reasons why the changes are necessary, though I am only too well aware both from my experience as an NHS employee and as a patient that any proposed changes to the delivery of healthcare are always viewed with suspicion and anxiety. I am not a proponent of change for change's sake, but the changes that have gathered pace in recent years are so profound that we have no alternative but to change our structures to fit with that change. I shall give noble Lords one small example. Could we have imagined how new technology would offer such extraordinary opportunities in terms of information about patients and conditions, still less perhaps that many patients would become so well informed about their conditions and possible treatments via the Internet?
All your Lordships know that this Bill, like Gaul, is in three parts but I shall confine myself to commenting on those parts which affect patients most. I commend the Government for the changes they have been willing to make to this Bill as it passed through another place, and for the way in which Ministers have listened. As a result, the Bill now before us is improved.
Many of us have been saying for years—indeed, I have lost count of how many years I have been saying it—that the delivery of healthcare services should start as near as possible to the patient and his or her family. That means at the primary care level. Yet really, ever since it was set up, the way in which the NHS is funded has been geared to hospitals and to large health authority areas. Successive reorganisations, of which there have been many, have failed to address the issue. Finally, functions are to be devolved to primary care trusts, which will become responsible for all family health services, as well as for the management of, development of, and integration of family health services practitioners. I am certain that this means that the health needs of each local community will be more effectively assessed, and that plans for health improvement will be more rooted in the needs of that community.
382
I am also very hopeful that the PCTs, as the lead organisation in joint working with local authorities, will enable the communication between health and social care services, which is so vital to patient care, to be more effective. For most people, healthcare means the GP and all the services that are provided in the local surgery. So I believe that all these developments are very much to be welcomed.
I have only two areas of concern, both of which were mentioned previously. The first is the public health function of the PCTs, which I believe is still somewhat unclear at present. I should not want the great concern about public health issues with which this Government have so ably dealt, and which has been so influential in setting health targets in recent years, to be lost. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give us some indication of how the public health function of the PCTs will be organised and promoted. I also have a slight concern about the timetable. Spring 2003 is doubtless not a problem for those PCTs that are already well established. But some are not, especially perhaps those in deprived areas. Is my noble friend confident that the timetable is realistic for all the trusts?
I welcome the strengthening of the role of the Commission for Health Improvement, increasing its independence from government and extending its functions to allow it to carry out inspections of NHS bodies, service providers and persons who provide, or are to provide, healthcare. However, like many who work in the social care field—I declare an interest as the interim chair of the General Social Care Council—I was slightly alarmed by a recent reference by the Secretary of State for Health to integration of inspection bodies at a time when the national care standard commission has not even begun to operate. It would be confusing and unsettling for one system of inspecting social care to he established only to be immediately integrated with another. At the very least, we need an assurance that any review will he most carefully undertaken.
I turn to the arrangements for more patient involvement. I want to say again, as I have said in your Lordships' House previously, what huge strides I believe we have made in this area in recent years. My recent prolonged stay in hospital showed me how much progress has been made in involving and consulting patients to ensure their own needs are always seen as paramount and central. But I am aware that my own experience at the Middlesex Hospital may still not be the experience of many patients, and that is why I feel that more legislation to encourage patient involvement is most welcome.
As is well known, there has been much concern about the abolition of the community health councils. As someone who has kept in close touch with CHCs over many years, I share that concern—especially as I was very briefly a chief officer of one of them in the 1970s. There is no doubt that some CHCs have been very effective in representing patients' views but we must recognise that their contribution has been patchy; indeed, that cannot be denied. I am satisfied that the latest proposals really will put patients

383
absolutely central inside the NHS, strengthening the power of the patient and giving many more the opportunity to be involved.
It is important to remember that the proposals before us in the Bill have not been just dreamt up: they are the result of extensive consultation with CHCs, many organisations in the voluntary sector, and patient organisations. That is clear in the welcome that they have received from all sides. They build on the excellent work that has been carried out over the years by CHCs and by other local and national organisations that put patients first.
I feel sure that the combination of patient forums, patient advocacy and liaison services, and the setting up of an independent body—the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health—will provide patients with a system that is independent, accountable and robust. It is of course vital that membership of these new bodies is drawn from a truly representative group, so that current and future users of the service, especially those from disadvantaged communities, have more opportunity than ever before to influence policy. If we refer to "stakeholders"—a fashionable word, as we have heard many times today—of the NHS, it is important to remember that everyone is a stakeholder when it comes to healthcare. Co-operation and communication between the new organisations will also be vital for their success, as will the issue of resources. I am sure that we shall return to that issue many times during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
I know that there is concern in some medical circles, and elsewhere, about the powers of the council for the regulation of healthcare professionals that is to be established. But we must recognise that recent events, such as the Bristol inquiry and the Kennedy report, have pointed out weaknesses in regulatory structures. In all conscience, that must be addressed. I particularly welcome the lay majority proposed. I believe that the General Social Care Council, to which I referred earlier, is an example of how a lay majority can provide as much protection as possible for patients and users.
This Bill, with the dramatic changes contained within it, has huge implications for the delivery of healthcare. I am sure that it will command widespread support among the general public—a little more. perhaps, than it has commanded thus far in your Lordships' House today—and deservedly so.
5.29 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I chair the medical school council of St George's Hospital, and once a year I make a fairly feeble attempt to thank them for all that they do. Tonight is the night. So I am afraid that I shall not be able to stay, possibly not even to listen to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham and some other noble Lords. However, I shall read Hansard diligently. I shall also ensure that it is not such a good party that I do not come back for the wind-up; of course I would not want to miss that.
384
It is very tempting in any debate on the NHS to start with a catalogue of statistics. I think that the Minister fell into that trap today. I shall perhaps also fall into that trap. It is very easy to quote statistics—such as that the number of hospital beds has decreased by 6.4 per cent since 1996, the number of people waiting more than 13 weeks for an outpatient appointment has doubled since 1997, and so on—but I do not want to get into all that tonight. I do not want to get into the claims and the counterclaims. I just know that providing health care is so very, very complicated. I also know that too many patients receive too poor a service.
I also know that the vast majority of people working in the NHS do their very best, and that too often the system fails. It fails not because of lack of commitment on their part—your Lordships have only to visit a hospital to see how tired people look at the moment, or a GP surgery to feel the frustration among the primary care team—it fails because we the politicians are forever tinkering, meddling and reorganising them. Of course it is legitimate for us to do so. As the Minister reminded us today, we carry a responsibility for a tax-based service. However, if we really want a service that is fit for purpose, meets the needs of a now very sophisticated society and protects the sick, the weak and the poor, we have to stop meddling. Yet, we have to retain the accountability for public funds.
Politicians are elected to do things, and every Minister knows that a career is not built simply by sitting on one's hands. However, with the enormous complexity that is the NHS, Ministers so often resort—1 am as guilty as any—to something that they think they understand: they shelter in the comfort zone of management structures. I think that this Bill is another example of that. Some cynics would say that we are seeking to reinvent regions as strategic health authorities, health authorities as primary care trusts, and so on. We are changing the language and changing the deckchairs, but that is about it.
I have no criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who has an enormous knowledge of the health service. However, I think that we have a corporate failure of the NHS, and that that failure starts at the top. I think it is the Chinese who say that, "the fish rots from the head". An organisation that is so complex, so difficult and that affects so many lives really cannot be managed by a nomadic population of politicians.
All our experience tells us that governments are hopeless managers. However, that does not mean that we need a health service that is run exclusively by private enterprise—I do not think that we do or that the nation would want that. I also do not think that such a health service would work. However, I have been thinking for some time about how we should distance the Government from daily management of the NHS and yet retain this accountability to Parliament. We need a body that is accountable to Parliament but independent. We have a number of good models along the lines of the Environment Agency and the Food Standards Agency, to give but two examples.

385
Thinking about all this, I was terribly relieved and actually greatly surprised that, last week, I was invited to the King's Fund to listen to them and hear that they had been working on very much the same lines. As my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon said, the fund has published a report—chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, which is very interesting—entitled The Future of the NHS—a framework for debate. I do not, however, share my noble and learned friend's misgivings. I think that it is a very encouraging beginning.
I shall not go through it all today, particularly the summary of responsibilities which very clearly identifies the role of the Government, the new body—whose working title is the NHS corporation—Parliament and primary care organisations, but save that for our consideration in Committee. I should, however, inform your Lordships—this is a Cumberlege warning—that I intend to table a number of new clauses because I really want something like that to happen. I want it to become a reality.
I know, as the Minister will no doubt tell me, that I am being naive. However, I also know, when I knock on a thousand doors at election time, that nothing would please the British people more than to get the politics out of health. That is one thing that they are always saying. I do not think that this is a fanciful idea. There will be those who say that no political administration would want to give up its power, and yet we have seen the right honourable Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at a stroke take the power to increase and reduce interest rates out of the hands of the Treasury and the immediate administration and give it to the independent Bank of England. It is simply political will that is needed.
I should address the issue of funding now as parliamentary privilege will not, I believe, allow me to table that type of amendment to this Bill. Rather than a hypothecated tax or a percentage of taxes raised, I would like to see all-party agreement on the percentage of GDP to be allocated to health. I stress that the sum is to be spent on health and not solely on the NHS. My model would enable us to rein in during hard times and expand in good times. It would also be directly related to what the country could afford at the time. The percentage should be agreed for a period of about five years, to provide a measure of stability, and the aim would be to increase to the European norm or better.
It may be sad, but the public are infinitely more interested in the NHS than they are in the reform of your Lordships' House. Yet, for the Lords reforms, we are all seeking party consensus. We ought and we need to have all-party agreement on the NHS. Right now, I think that we have to admit defeat. I am so ashamed—I am humiliated—that we, a civilised country, can no longer look after our sick but export them to other nations to care for. It is a disgrace.
As for other aspects of the Bill, there are some contentious issues. However, as my time is short, I shall just make a passing reference to two of them and seek an assurance on the third.
386
The first issue concerns the abolition of CHCs. The Minister knows the arguments better than perhaps almost anyone. The real fear is that there will no longer be a truly independent body representing patients—a body with a modicum of power, a body to identify and challenge inadequacies. "Divide and rule" has been a very well known Machiavellian strategy for centuries, and with the proposed fragmentation of scrutiny, monitoring and complaints work between the overview and scrutiny committees, the independent complaints advocacy service, the patient advice and liaison service and the patients forum, I really fear that an already fairly muted voice will be further weakened. A good organisation uses criticism positively and to advantage. A weak organisation is defensive and tries to silence its critics.
The second aspect concerns the enormous disquiet about the Bill's proposals on the Medical Education Standards Board as well as the council for regulation of health care professionals. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe addressed that issue so well, and I strongly support his comments. I also share the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, who I know is a very much respected authority on this subject. I am also sure that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will weigh in later in this debate and refer to the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges.
There is a huge amount of opposition to the measure, not least from the Council of Heads of Medical Schools. They believe that there should be a clear separation of powers between the Secretary of State's role in running the NHS—which, of course, I shall change in the course of the Bill—and a longer term role for Parliament. Parliament should ensure that standards are maintained at a professional level, insulated from day-to-day political issues. While collaboration between professions should he encouraged, the proposals go too far in weakening the role of the GMC in self-regulation. It is absolutely essential that the professions themselves should have confidence in their regulatory system; otherwise, it simply will not function and, I believe, patients will suffer.
Finally, I have given notice to the Minister that the Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians seeks an assurance that the constitution of local optical committees, when rewritten, will encompass all ophthalmic contractors, including those which are corporate contractors and those which are dispensing opticians, on the same lines as the current pharmaceutical committees. I should very much welcome an assurance on that as I know that that will save time later—time which I shall take when I bring forward a legion of clauses.
The Minister in opening the debate said that he felt the NHS needed reform and a new relationship with government. I totally agree and I very much look forward to his close co-operation and agreement to my amendments which will, of course, do just that.
5.41 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I must begin by declaring my interests in two senses of the word. I am a non-executive director of the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust. Also, two of my three children work for the National Health Service.
Reading large parts of the Bill gives one a rather strange sense of time. Are we in the present or are we in the past? As regards the mandatory establishment of primary care trusts and the creation of strategic health authorities, surely all of that is already under way. Chairmen and chief executive officers are already being appointed to run the new apparatus. Time alone will tell what difference these changes make to the delivery of healthcare. But two things are certain. The first is the immense human cost of yet another reorganisation. The second is that no structures are ever perfect but we have to make them work. I am reminded of an observation once made by a friend of mine who has given many years of distinguished public service, "There's nothing so daft you can't make it work".
So my plea above all to the Government is this: once this reorganisation is in place, please leave it alone and let people get on with their work. That means, for us, passing at least those parts of the Bill concerned with the establishment of primary care trusts and the strategic health authorities—even if for some noble Lords that may mean holding their noses a little—because not to do so at this stage would cause still more personal distress and upheaval.
Nevertheless, I register a couple of anxieties and only time will show whether or not they are justified. First, are there enough competent managers as well as non-executives of sufficient ability to run all these PCTs? If not, we may be in deep trouble. Secondly, is it wise—this is reinforced in my mind after what we have heard about Wales—to have shown so little regard for the structures of local and regional government in fixing the boundaries of the new layers of administration?
Birmingham, as the Minister well knows, used to have five and then four health authorities. That multiplicity, together with a plethora of competing institutions and special interests, made it impossible for years to effect any rational reorganisation. Then, eight or nine years ago, the four health authorities were merged into one for the whole city. It was that catalyst—one health authority for the whole city—which provided a structure in which it was possible to address the health needs of the city as a whole and to make progress. The noble Lord played a vital and distinguished part in that process, as he well knows. Yet now Birmingham is going back to four PCTs, together with a strategic health authority—it is not a case of renaming the old health authority; that is a fib in the first clause of the Bill—for the whole of Birmingham, Solihull and the Black Country. That is a rather more far-reaching operation than merely changing the name of the old health authority. But one also notices ruefully that the four embryonic PCTs are already setting up joint organs of consultation in order
388
to deal with the city and the local authority as a whole. Does this mean that, willy-nilly, we shall now have three layers instead of two simply to make the show work?
I shall not say anything about the healthcare professions as that is not my field, but I should like to turn to what is termed "patient and public involvement in health". That very formulation raises a question: who are the patients if they are not the public? For the purposes of representation, what qualifies someone to count as a patient over and above having their name on the electoral roll? The key issue in securing effective patient and public involvement is plain: how do we secure the necessary combination of competence and representativeness? Once again, the familiar debate between nomination and representation raises its head.
If one goes for nomination as the Bill suggests, one is more likely to secure the desirable range and level of competence but at the expense of the appearance of democratic legitimacy. If, on the other hand, one goes for election in the name of independence and democracy, one may end up with an ill-assorted, politically motivated and, in effect, self-selected body which will not do very much either for patients or for the service. I understand why the Government appear to have chosen the path of appointment, but it would be good to hear a great deal more about the details. There are far too many instances of the Secretary of State making regulations. The details are important because the process by which people are appointed to such bodies as patients forums will be crucial to their public credibility. It is vital for the health of the service that the public as a whole should have a robust, informed and effective voice in the structures of the NHS.
The old community health councils, for all sorts of reasons, have not always been universally effective or, indeed, truly representative, as the noble Lord and I know. I say that without in any way wanting to denigrate the conscientious work of very many members and officers of CHCs. If CHCs are to go, we need something evidently better—competent, independent and also properly resourced. Again, the question arises: where are all these competent and independent people? In looking for the members of a patients forum, as for non-executives of PCTs, we are fishing in the same pool as those who find themselves looking for school governors and magistrates, to give two obvious examples. Even now, such people are not easily found, particularly in our inner cities, in sufficient numbers. If the Government's measures succeed in developing really effective and publicly credible vehicles for public and patient involvement, that will be excellent. I only raise a few questions in that context.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I personally welcome many of the proposals contained in the Bill, especially those relating to the streamlining of NHS and other agencies so that they can better work together in future, and the emphasis on local

389
involvement. I also welcome the strengthening of the health inspectorate under CHI. Inspection is a form of monitoring, and monitoring, followed by effective action where necessary, is vital to put into effect key parts of the Bill. Without monitoring, it is impossible to charter improvements or what is needed for further action.
I turn to two areas in which I have particular interest. The first involves the NHS and the Prison Service. The provisions in the Bill for joint working between the NHS and the Prison Service have not been mentioned. Noble Lords may wonder why I am particularly interested in that reform. My husband was for 10 years the chair of the Prison Officers' Association and I used to hear at first hand the difficulties that arose between the NHS and the Prison Service over the health and welfare of prisoners. In 1999, the Government set out their views on closer working relationships between the two bodies in the report entitled, The Future Organisation of Prison Health Care. The Bill puts flesh on the bones of the report's proposals.
It is often said that a nation can be judged by the way in which it treats its prisoners. I am sure that we all agree that those who have broken the law should be punished. The punishment is in the deprivation of liberty. After that, prisoners must be shown humanity and care. The Bill will remove existing barriers and allow the NHS and the Prison Service to agree between them which of the two agencies is better placed to carry out functions that are agreed on and how the joint resources of the two agencies should be deployed. It will also allow the overlap of responsibilities that have previously existed to be avoided.
It is obviously common sense to have a pooling of resources in that area. That will allow more flexibility— particularly financial flexibility. It is also common sense for two agencies to delegate functions to one another and to agree between themselves. That move is particularly important and long overdue in relation to prisoners who require certain health services, and who may in the past have found themselves trapped between two organisations with differing views on and differing perceptions of the way in which to provide the needed service. Above all, the emphasis on responding to local needs rather than having an overall response throughout the country is greatly to be welcomed. Prisons differ from place to place and prisoners differ from prison to prison. It is therefore right that health needs should be tailored to the prisoners in any particular prison; only local knowledge can provide and access the help that is needed.
Secondly, I, too, turn to CHCs. I last discussed that subject during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. I voiced my fears then about their abolition and that of patients councils. The union for whom I worked, MSF—now Amicus—has members who worked in CHCs. The debate on their future has gone on for a long time. It is hard to give of your best when the sword of Damocles is hanging over your head. CHC workers still have great anxiety about their future and need decisions to be taken once and for all.
390
It appears from the Bill that the Government are determined to abolish CHCs. I am personally sorry about that. If that is the case, we need answers to the questions that were raised in previous debates. One question was about the continued involvement of patients in the NHS in CHCs. I have noted the references to patients forums. Members of the local community will bring local knowledge and views to the forums; if that is done, it can only be helpful. That appears to answer that point.
However, many questions remain. What will happen to those people who currently work in CHCs? Will they be absorbed into the new structures? Is that a growth area, and is there potential for them to extend their expertise and apply their particular skills and knowledge? If so, will there be adequate training and re-training for them, as well as support services, when needed? What will be the salary levels for those workers, in comparison with their present pay? Very importantly, is the timing right? Will the CHCs be phased out at the same time as the new organisations are being established, and so allow any employee movement to take effect without a period of unemployment and ensure continuity of involvement of patients and public? Finally, will there be representation from a variety of public groups that are involved in the new arrangements?
Those are vital questions, which need to be answered, particularly for the employees involved, who face a very traumatic time. I know that I am not the only Peer who is anxious about those questions; indeed, they have already been raised today. In the other place, 26 Labour Members rebelled and called for the re-creation of patients councils, which would in turn oversee patients forums. I am not taking that line because it would overload the system and create one too many layers of involvement. However, anxieties that are expressed need to be taken seriously.
I should welcome reassurances from my noble friend on the points that I have raised. I also want an assurance that the proposals in the Bill for patient and public involvement are on a par with and as robust as the previous arrangements involving CHCs.
There will be a great deal of debate and detailed discussion on this Bill as it goes through this House, and I look forward to taking part in that. The Bill can pave the way for a reformed and revitalised NHS.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen. Although she and I are very often on different sides of an argument, I find myself largely in agreement with her second point, which she made so forcefully. I shall confine my remarks to my concerns about the abolition of community health councils.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is not in his place, I am sure that the Liberal Democrat Front Bench will convey to him at least my congratulations on his ingenuity in moving a reasoned amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time. I have suddenly realised that the noble

391
Lord has secured the unique achievement—this is very much in his favour—of being able to speak twice and also of having the last word. I admire his technique and I very much agree with a good deal of what he said about CHCs.
My noble friend Lord Howe made, from the Front Bench, a very powerful speech and correctly pointed out that the status quo for CHCs was not an option. That must be right. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, who is temporarily not in her place. In another powerful contribution, she—and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham—correctly pointed out that the performance of CHCs has been patchy. No one disagrees with that.
I turn to the comments made in another place by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Hazel Blears, which appear in the Official Report, but which I shall not quote. She is my predecessor bar 12 years in the Department of Health. She said that her vision for the reform of the community health councils would be to introduce a more effective, independent and integrated system. In my brief contribution, I shall use those three tests to analyse what the Government propose.
First, are the patients forums likely to be more effective than the community health councils? I acknowledge from the outset that many patient provisions—services provided by the community health councils—have not been as effective in some parts of the country as they have been in others. From my own experience as a constituency MP, the Northamptonshire North Community Health Council has been effective. Not only has it been a thorn in the flesh of health Ministers from Northamptonshire, such as myself; it has kept local Members of Parliament up to scratch. I pay tribute to what that CHC has achieved. There are only two CHCs in the county of Northamptonshire. If we moved to the reforms that the Minister outlined when he introduced the Bill, we would have seven patients forums in Northamptonshire. Therefore, we would move from two bodies to seven.
Here I pick up a point made forcefully and correctly by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. He pointed out that it is very difficult to get high quality volunteers to serve on such bodies as the proposed patients forums. Northamptonshire would move from having 24 representatives of the voluntary organisations and independents—I do not refer to those from local government—to, if we assume that we are talking about 12 per forum, a requirement for 84 recruits—that is, volunteers or independent members of the community—to serve on the forums. I say to the Minister that it will be very difficult to find that number of people of sufficient quality and with sufficient interest.
One deficiency of the community health council system to which the Minister referred—I believe that he is right in this regard—is that the CHCs are unable to bring together their concerns in a single national voice. Their views are far too disparate, local and of uneven quality to affect decisions by the Department
392
of Health. I welcome the initiative of the commission or some other central body to gather together the views of local—as I would wish them to be—community health councils.
Secondly, do the reforms pass the test of being independent? Together with a number of other noble Lords, I do not believe that that test is passed. The patients forums will have no staff; they will have to rely on the local offices of the commission for patient and public involvement in health to staff their deliberations; the chairman of the commission is to be appointed by the Secretary of State, as my noble friend Lord Howe indicated, so that, to some extent, they will be a creature of the Department of Health; and it is said that the commission will operate right down to local patient forum level.
It is a top-down initiative or reform; it is not community led. It will require a number of appointees to be found by local commission staff. As my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon said—he is greatly familiar with the history of community health councils—it will be difficult to argue that the local patients forums are genuinely independent and stem from the community if the commission has encouraged their growth and largely found and promoted the individual members in the first place.
The final test is whether this initiative—that is, the new patients forums—can be regarded as being integrated. Clearly it does not pass that test because the individual citizen and patient will have to express his or her concerns about the health service through different patients forums: one for the ambulance service; one for the healthcare service, which deals, for example, with mental health provision in the community; one for hospital services; and, of course, one for primary care services. Therefore, it is not joined-up government; it will be confusing for the local citizen and patient.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—he is now in his seat; in his absence I paid him a compliment about his parliamentary techniques—rightly indicated, we have not only patients forums but the patient advice and liaison service, the independent complaints and advocacy service, and, of course the overview and scrutiny committee of local government. If we pass this Bill, we shall shatter the community health councils for ever and lose that integrated service.
Mr David Hinchliffe, the chairman of the Health Select Committee, introduced an amendment to the Bill in the other place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, mentioned a moment ago, 26 Labour dissident Members of Parliament voted for his amendment. I believe that the amendment was reasoned and sensible, and I do not consider that one can argue that Clause 15(4) will work. That provision requires the forums to work together. It is not an adequate substitute for retaining the community health councils, reformed as they may be. Therefore, I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and, indeed, the Cross-Benchers, together with, I hope, some dissident Members of your Lordships'

393
House on the government Benches, supporting the necessary amendments to the Bill when we reach later stages.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, we were, of course, forewarned. When I picked up the Bill I could not suppress an audible groan at seeing yet another reorganisation of the NHS. It is almost 57 years since I graduated in medicine. Of those years, I spent 43, happily and enthusiastically, in the National Health Service in clinical practice, in medicine and, later, in neurology as a trainee, a consultant and, subsequently, as a clinical academic. That continued until, in 1992, I was precluded from further clinical practice in the NHS on the grounds of age.
During my professional career, at a rough count I have seen 17 reorganisations—some major, some minor, some good and some disastrous for the NHS—being imposed on an increasingly disenchanted and now desperately embattled group of healthcare professionals.
In the debate which I was privileged to open in your Lordships' House on 21st November on the subject of education and training in the NHS, I pointed to the fact that, with an ageing population and very important and effective new drugs and new technology, public expectation and demand has escalated very properly. But it has done so in the face of a growing shortage of acute beds and the closure of community hospitals, such as that in Burford, which in the past have made an invaluable contribution to the so-called "bed-blocking" phenomenon.
But, above all, there is still a desperate shortage of doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals at all levels. That is a song which I have sung to governments of every political complexion for over 30 years. We have half as many GPs and half as many consultants in every specialty, not least in my own specialty of neurology, as highlighted yesterday in the correspondence columns of The Times, as the country needs to fulfil and provide a fully effective health service.
Despite those factors, the vast majority of doctors, nurses and others are giving expert, dedicated care, sometimes under intolerable conditions. The Prime Minister's tribute to public service workers in Newcastle on Saturday last was most welcome. I also pay tribute to this Government for their wish to increase substantially funding of the NHS, although it will take time to work through the system. I also pay tribute to the collaboration and willingness to listen of the Minister and his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, not least in the debates during the passage of the Health Act 1999, which resulted in substantial modification in this House.
How I wish I could be equally complimentary about the Bill. If enacted as it stands, it will impose another period of turmoil on an NHS in despair. A new administrative load will divert many clinicians from time available for clinical care and new massive pressures on managers at all levels will be equally a
394
problem. In my view the Government are suffering from an acute attack of "quangoitis" and is determined to convert the NHS into a "quangocracy".
Clinical judgment is not an exact science. Even in the best and most experienced hands, during long hours of work and under relentless pressure, some mistakes are inevitable; happily they are remarkably few. But every medical slip-up that comes to public notice is splashed across the media in an orgy of doctor-bashing and NHS-bashing. So-called scandals are regularly manufactured. Many, like the North Staffordshire paediatric problem, which led to the unjustified two-year suspension of a capable and dedicated professor—now reinstated with his reputation intact—have proved to he totally spurious. Even Government Ministers and shadow Ministers are not immune from instant but often unsubstantiated and misconceived comments.
Cases like that highlighted in the Bristol heart inquiry; the appalling behaviour of Dr Shipman; the problems of Rodney Ledward and others did—very reasonably—dent public confidence in the medical profession. Yet public opinion polls continue to show that satisfaction with the performance of doctors and nurses remains top of the list. Public satisfaction with the present NHS, beset by declining morale and a rash of early retirements does not. I say in passing that following Alderhay, 10 per cent of consultant pathologist posts in the NHS are now vacant with no applicants.
Will the Bill do anything to improve patient care and the delivery of health services across the board? Will it improve morale, recruitment and retention of NHS staff? In my view the reverse is likely to be the case. I welcome the proposal to devolve funding to a more local level. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, I am concerned that this massive diversion of resources to primary care groups, though welcome in itself, may have an adverse effect upon the funding of tertiary and highly-specialised services such as cardio-thoracic surgery, neurosurgery and many more. Perhaps the strategic health authorities will be able to deal with that problem if implemented.
The press comment on foundation hospitals did not seem to me to be encouraging. Why is there no mention in the Bill of teaching and research, which are so fundamental a part of the National Health Service? The teaching of our medical students, the education and postgraduate training of our doctors and nurses and others is of fundamental importance and is not even mentioned. Have the Government lost their heaven-sent opportunity to establish jointly-based hospitals which are jointly managed by the NHS, the universities and their medical schools as recommended some time ago by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Clauses on CHI are perhaps acceptable; at least most of them are. But CHI surely must be merged in time with the National Care Standards Commission to create one quango out of two. Why not reform the community health councils? Why replace them with poorly-defined patients fora—I may be a dinosaur but

395
I refuse to say "forums"—and a new overarching commission? I am reminded so much of the Government's decision to abolish the Health Education Council, to replace it with a Health Education Authority and then to abolish that and to replace it with yet a third body. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
My major strictures on the Bill, however, relate to the council for the regulation of the health professionals. I regard that proposal as being wholly inappropriate, dangerously misconceived and potentially damaging. Some years ago the highly respected late Lord Hailsham wrote a paper called, How to Destroy the Professions. He said that professional self-regulation was one of the glories of a civilised society but it must not be done without full and capable lay participation—I wholly agree—and it must not be a cover for incompetence or inefficiency. In his Jephcott lecture to the Royal Society of Medicine, the then Sir Ralf Dahrendorf, now the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said that professional self-regulation was crucial. In his view, the alternative of regulation by the state was fearful and to be condemned. He spoke with great authority, having formerly been a German citizen, where he saw the malign effect of state control of medical registration and medical education.
The constitution and powers of the General Medical Council, General Dental Council and the other regulatory authorities are being well revised following the Health Act 1999. They all have a substantial lay involvement representing the patients' voice, which is an important matter, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. But now, to impose upon those bodies yet another overarching government quango answerable directly to the Secretary of State in my view is a serious mistake. It is reminiscent of the McKinsey-designed reform of the NHS of 1974, where we had regional health authorities, area health authorities and district health authorities. Consensus management was introduced, so that if one wanted to appoint a new registrar that had to go through 15 committees at local and national level so that the decision-making process congealed.
If the Government force through the proposal concerning the council for the health care professions—I fervently hope that they will think better of it—the reserve powers of the Secretary of State—I almost said Big Brother, with shades of Nineteen Eighty-Four—are totally unacceptable and must be deleted. The regulatory authorities must be independent of political interference, answerable only to Parliament and through the Privy Council.
While I am on my feet perhaps I may refer to the proposed medical education standards board. A document is now out for consultation. In my view, that is another irrational and unprecedented attack on the independence of the medical profession and on medical educators. I shall keep my powder dry until that is translated into legislation. However, it is extraordinary that an official Department of Health consultative document seems so ignorant of the
396
provisions of the Medical Act. It is not the General Medical Council which is responsible for medical education. It is in the Act that it is the education committee, broadly based with powerful lay representation, which is responsible. It is not solely responsible for undergraduate education. The words of the Medical Act—which I know well—state that that education committee has the responsibility not only for promoting high standards of medical education but for co-ordinating all stages of medical education, including, it follows, postgraduate education.
Having admired, as I have, many of the things that this Government have done and are now trying to do to improve the NHS, I wish that I could endorse the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on his brave attempt in his opening remarks to defend the indefensible. These are strong words. I know that it pains me to say them, not least because of the high regard I have for the noble Lord. However, I ask the Government to consign many parts of the Bill to the dustbin, where they belong. For pity's sake, will the Government stop tinkering with the NHS? Will they get on with increasing resources; increasing the number of acute hospital beds and long-stay beds in the community, and increasing the establishment of medical and nursing staff while allowing them to fulfil the responsibilities for which they have been trained; that is, to serve patients and the community?
6.20 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I must begin by apologising to the Minister and to the House. I have a long-standing engagement in Manchester tomorrow morning and I shall almost certainly have to leave before the end of this debate.
Many noble Lords, when reciting interests in the Bill, have taken the opportunity to rehearse their glorious youth. I want to add my interests to theirs. I have worked within or alongside the health service for the whole of my professional life. That dates from before the inception of the National Health Service. I well remember standing as a student nurse on the appointed day wondering whether the end of the world was about to descend on us. We should all celebrate the great achievements of our National Health Service; yet changes are necessary.
I look back also on my experience serving on an area health authority, from which I resigned in order to serve on the Royal Commission on the National Health Service. That was set up by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, and was under the chairmanship of Sir Alec Merrison. We laboured for three years looking at the structure of the National Health Service and at every level of worker in it. We travelled and looked at health services in other countries. After three years we reported and suggested that there should be structural changes. Unfortunately, none of those took place because the government changed shortly after the report was completed.

397
So far as concerns professional regulation, I was the first nurse chairman of the Joint Board of Clinical Nursing Studies which was responsible for the clinical post-basic education of nursing. I say the "first nurse chairman" because before that it was unthinkable that a nurse could chair something to do with clinical nursing; it had to be a doctor. So progress in the regulation of the professions was being made.
The work of the joint hoard was later subsumed under the work of the English National Board. I was appointed as its first chairman and so was ex officio a member of the UKCC for nursing, midwifery and health visiting. So it is with that background of a long-lasting and deep interest, both in the structure of the health service and in professional regulation, that I come to this debate. At this point, much of what I wanted to say has already been said. I do not want to reiterate those matters, but perhaps to underline a few issues and some of my areas of concern.
I begin by saying that I give full support to the proposals to widen the remit of the Commission for Health Improvement and particularly the emphasis laid on incorporating the patient environment into the definition of the quality of care. I served on the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which dealt with resistance to antimicrobial agents. We received vivid evidence of the lack of hygiene in the patient environment. Looking back on a long professional career, I wonder why we need this role institutionalised because, in my early days, the patient environment, cleanliness and hygiene were readily accepted as being the responsibility of every professional worker in the health service. But I am glad to see that this is now to be included in the remit of the Commission for Health Improvement.
When we look at the many facets of inspection and audit—it may be by CHI, clinical audit and the office for information on healthcare—these are only the beginning of the many systems that we have heard enumerated earlier in the debate. While we recognise the need for these systems of quality control for clinical care and education, they place a considerable burden of time and paperwork on those involved. Some of these strategies only add to the burden carried by professional people in the health service. We should make every effort to synchronise inspections for different purposes and to rationalise the record keeping as they detract from the time available for direct clinical care of patients.
I suppose that it is under the aegis of the regulation of healthcare professions that I have had the greatest number of representations. I believe that the establishment of the council for the regulation of health care professionals—I note what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has said—has been accepted by most of the statutory bodies. None of the professions would argue against the continuing need for a robust and accountable regulatory framework for the protection of the public and for public satisfaction.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, and I had the privilege of working with the General Dental Council on its revision of its structure and functions. Most of
398
the statutory bodies have made great strides in that direction. But the proposals in the Bill for the council for the regulation of health care professions are of concern because they place excessive power in the hands of the Secretary of State. They move the locus of accountability away from Parliament and the Privy Council towards the Secretary of State. If the Bill is passed in its present form, the council will be given power to direct the existing regulatory bodies to change their rules. These may be important rules. For example, there will be a requirement for the General Medical Council to co-operate with the council. We can only hazard a guess as to what "co-operate" may mean.
The Kennedy report recommended an overarching body to look at standards of postgraduate medical education, which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has already mentioned. Kennedy suggested that the body should be answerable to the General Medical Council. But the consultative document Postgraduate Medical Education and Training suggested that a Medical Education Standards Board should sit alongside the General Medical Council and overlap it in its responsibilities for monitoring standards in postgraduate medical education. Certainly the Council of Heads of Medical Schools, with its colleagues in dental and nursing schools, found that regrettable. They also find it remarkable that nowhere mentioned in the document is the role of universities.
It is right and proper that the department should have a real interest in the training of health care professionals for specific tasks and roles. But to make that a narrow kind of training is wholly unenlightened. We need to bear in mind that education for professionals should have a far broader perspective. We need to have a broad knowledge base for processional practice with up-to-date research. 'We need to train the students of our professions to learn how to learn, so that they can be both innovative and adaptable.
I look forward to future stages of the Bill and the ability to debate the amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, my interest in the Bill stems from two sources: first as chairman of an acute NHS trust; secondly as a member of my local authority.
As has been said throughout the debate, structural changes are no stranger to the health service. Their rationale can be justified only if they bring benefit and improvement in their wake. Various governments have found deficiencies in all the structures created since Aneurin Bevan's initial concept. As a result, reform of both strategic and local organisations has taken place on what I think all your Lordships would agree has been too frequent a basis. In my time, I have been a member of an area health authority, a district health authority and a regional health authority. I do not take it terribly personally that all of them have been disbanded—perhaps as a result, perhaps not.

399
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, the latest initiatives are once again seismic. They will take time to settle down and will last for only as long as they can be seen to deal with the practical aspects of the healthcare service that confront us today, many of the solutions to which are substantial and long-term but are set against the background of immediate, short-term governmental imperatives.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, said better than I, much has been made of the inspectorate regime. The strengthening of the CHI is relatively uncontroversial. As the chairman of a trust that has been through a CHI inspection, I would say only that on the whole we found it helpful and constructive. That would be fine if CHI were the only inspectorate, but an inordinate amount of senior officers' time is spent providing material and support to various organisations that keep on popping up. Yesterday, I found another one, which turned out to be the winter emergency service taskforce. We are delighted when someone comes to look at A& E to see what is the problem about emergencies. But that ties up senior officers for another full day dealing with what has to be done.
So somewhere along the line—I hope, in the Bill; but, if not after—serious consideration must be given to the number of inspectorates and helpful people who keep arriving and who need enormous support, which is diverted from elsewhere. Much is said about the amount of administration in the health service. I can assure your Lordships that in acute trusts it is limited—and, at middle-management level, non-existent. The Government must consider what is to be done about all the inspectorate regimes and other helpful bodies that keep on appearing.
It is not too fine a point to say that the acute sector is currently strained to the limits to deliver a humane, efficient and successful service. It cannot operate alone, and there is an urgent need for a much closer relationship between it, the primary care service and social services—which the Bill is intended to provide. Protocols need to be developed to ensure that while patients can always be referred to hospital, GPs can—and do—carry out many more procedures and care at primary care level. Patients should be cared for either in their own homes or in facilities which are near to them—or, at least, to their family and friends.
That is becoming more difficult. In the borough in which I live and which I represent, during the past six months we have lost two major homes for elderly care. About 200 beds have gone. People lived locally and felt comfortable about going somewhere close to their family in an area that they knew. Some of them are now in Lambeth, I believe. Such facilities cannot easily be replicated, however much money the Minister provides. That serious problem must be considered.
Those who need specialised care, diagnosis and planning of treatment will need the acute sector. Its facilities should allow for a rapid turnaround and an expectation that, except for the most acutely and seriously ill, the stay in hospital is of the shortest
400
duration necessary to ensure that care and future management is sorted out—in other words, that a larger share of the burden of care is shouldered by those in the primary care sector. The tertiary care problem has already been mentioned, with which acute trusts will always be dealing—willingly.
The new structures are predicated on that, but power is money and the great test of their success will be how the new PCTs allocate the resources passed to them and what safety nets the Government will maintain financially to support the many initiatives they have set up against challenging targets. Strategic health authorities have not been given a reserve role in that respect, as no funds for that are being allocated to them. They will have to be arbiters and adjudicators on finance without any levers to ensure that equity between the primary and acute sectors is achieved.
Funding has been agreed for this year with current health authorities, but with the new PCTs only in embryonic form there is great concern that the policies and cross-trust financial arrangements for the following year will be hard to implement sufficiently early. Trusts will need to work with their colleagues in both the acute and community sectors to develop future ways of working. In the short term, we may need stability funding. I wonder what consideration the Minister has given to that.
Every acute trust is labouring against the problem of more patients with greater expectations being treated against the background of some challenging government-set targets. It is what I call the squidgy jelly syndrome. I am sure that your Lordships all remember squidgy jelly: when one puts one's hand here, it pops up there. Where waiting time targets or emergency admissions, for example, are achieved, some other target is almost inevitably jeopardised. If elective surgery times are achieved, there is a back-up in emergency admissions. If bed discharges cannot take place sufficiently quickly, other admissions cannot be implemented. Every day in the acute sector is one to be juggled for the best results that can be obtained. That puts the most enormous pressure on the system.
I want to emphasise that there is no shortage of enthusiasm and no lack of commitment or deficiency in practical application of solutions. Forward, backward and lateral thinking occurs all the time, but it will take all the effort of the acute, primary and local authority sectors working together to have even a chance of achieving the results on which the Bill is predicated.
The Bill also implements proposals in the Health and Social Care Act 2001 for patients forums. During the passage of that Act, as the Minister may well remember, there was considerable discussion about how the members of those forums would be selected, especially as one of their number will be elected to serve on the related trust board.
As a result of concern expressed on several fronts, I believe that members will now be appointed by the regional commission. That means that they will pass through the procedures to which representatives on

401
health bodies are normally subject. But, as the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Birmingham pointed out, there will be an enormous number of them. When the Minister replies to the debate, perhaps he will confirm that that will be the procedure and that the regional commission will be involved.
That may resolve one of the questions that caused concern about the representative to be elected to the trust board. The appointment could be seen to equate to that of the other members of the board. However, I have not yet heard addressed the further question of whether that patients forum representative is to replace, or be in addition to, an existing board member, or what guidance is being issued about that member assuming the corporate responsibilities of the board, while having a specific patient focus. It is an important matter, as the patients forums are to have the right of inspection of any aspect of the trusts, including primary care trusts, and to refer any matters of concern to the local authority overview and scrutiny committee, thus extending the remit of that body.
I am anxious that, from the outset, the roles and responsibilities of the patients forum board members be spelt out and that there be no confusion or conflict of interest. They will need to be trusted by their board colleagues, executive and non-executive, and it may be that the Minister will think it appropriate to exclude the patients forum board members from taking part in inspections in their own trust, although they will clearly he expected to involve themselves in the other work of the forum and to know and understand the trust on which they serve.
I apologise for going on about this, but, as the chairman of an acute trust, I am acutely aware of the potential conflicts that can arise for the patients forum hoard director. Their roles and responsibilities must be resolved. We must know when they are working for the patients forum and when they are working for the hoard. The board must be clear that confidentiality concerning that patients forum board member applies to the trust hoard, if that is required. The mix of roles and responsibilities must be resolved at this stage.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, as I read the Bill, I asked myself what changes were emerging. It seemed to me that, as regards the point at which healthcare is received—the surgery, the clinic, the outpatients department or the ward—the answer was none, or 'very few, at least in the short term. The essence of the relationship between patient, doctor, clinician and nurse will remain undisturbed.
On the other hand, there will be substantial changes in the administrative structure of the NHS. The hope must be that those administrative changes will make it easier for GPs, clinicians and nurses to improve the standard of care for patients and ensure continuity of care. However, I tend to be cautious. The NHS has been subjected to so many administrative changes during the past 30 years.
I am bound to endorse almost every word uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, relating to the impact of the Bill on the NHS in Wales. The
402
distinctive Welsh provisions of the Bill are greatly welcomed in Wales. The National Assembly for Wales is anxious that its part of the Bill should be enacted with the minimum of delay. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has explained the impact of Clause 6. In conjunction with the Government of Wales Act 1998, the Assembly will introduce secondary legislation to abolish the five existing area health authorities and devolve their functions and powers to 22 local authorities, coterminous with the 22 unitary authorities. That arrangement is, obviously, different from that proposed for England, but it is consistent with the great stress placed in the devolution debate on bringing government closer to people.
At a meeting with several Welsh Peers last Monday, Jane Hutt, the Welsh Assembly Health Minister, assured us that there was an adequate supply of senior managers with the skills, expertise and vision to serve the 22 health boards in Wales. That was reassuring.
I want to welcome the drafting of Clause 6. It enables the Welsh Assembly to introduce, by secondary legislation, the structure that it considers appropriate to the needs of Wales. I hope that other Whitehall departments, when they come to draft legislation affecting the devolved areas, will pay due regard to Clause 6 of this Bill.
The new NHS structure in Wales, providing strong lay representation at district and all-Wales level, gives full recognition to the public interest. According to my count—I may be wrong—that will mean that about 200 to 250 laypersons, plus Members of the National Assembly, will be involved in the management of the NHS in Wales. We may really be returning to the kind of structure established by Aneurin Bevan in 1947.
The lack of attention to monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of the NHS has been an important failure. I am, therefore, very pleased that the role of the Commission for Health Improvement is to be strengthened. With its history' of ill health, Wales can benefit greatly from the work of the commission. However, apart from the work of the commission, it is not clear by whom and at what level that important work will be undertaken in Wales. Will it be undertaken by the Welsh Assembly, by the universities or by other bodies?
Part 2 of the Bill creates the council for the regulation of health care professionals. I am sure that the entire House will support the aspiration of the Government to improve standards of care and professional standards of conduct in the NFIS. However, the House will have listened with growing unease and concern to the powerful speech made by my noble friend Lord Turnberg and to the powerful criticism of Clause 25 that was also expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. Both spoke with great authority. They raised the concern that the council will have power to direct any one of the regulatory bodies to make rules to achieve what it considers to be a desired end.
I have the honour of being a member of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I should like to refer to the 11th report of that

403
committee, which draws the attention of the House to the significance of the power in Clause 25(2). Paragraph 8 states:
"The House may share our concern that circumstances could arise where the Council give directions that might amount to an unjustified interference with the independence of a professional body. We recommend the introduction of a measure of Parliamentary control by providing that any directions shall take effect from a date to be specified by order made by the Secretary of State".
The committee goes on in paragraph 9 to recommend that the order should be made subject to the affirmative procedure. I venture to urge my noble friend on the Front Bench, and the Government, to give serious consideration to this clause and the criticisms of it addressed by distinguished Members of the House.
6.51 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I have to begin my contribution to this National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill debate by asking the Minister a question on the very first clause: why change the name of the English health authorities to strategic health authorities? In Scotland and Wales they do not include the word, "strategic". I am sure many people want to know the answer.
People who use the National Health Service want a good efficient service with accurate communication between the patient, primary and secondary health services and, when necessary, transfer to a specialising service which may be out of the area—OATS, or what used to be known as an extra contractual referrals. There is no doubt that in health the experts know best.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House an assurance that specialised services will not be damaged in this reform. I am concerned about the overloading of primary healthcare. At the moment many people are fearful that they cannot obtain an appointment to see their GP for several days. To give an example, a young woman I know arrived back from a trip abroad in agony. She telephoned her GP only to be told that there was a four day wait. She went to the Accident and Emergency Department of the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, which found that she had an ectopic pregnancy. Had she left the condition for a few more hours she might have died.
It is no wonder people throughout the country are concerned about the pressures on our much-needed National Health Service. To get it right there needs to be an immense amount of support from all corners of the country. The National Health Service is far too important to be pushed around for the sake of political gain. People's lives are at stake.
The Government—it does not matter which government—need public support in running the NHS. We live in a complex society with increasing violence to hospital staff, an increase of patient neglect due to a shortage of beds and pressure on an overloaded service. Changing health authorities and
404
doing away with community health councils will not solve the problems. The Government at this present time face a huge challenge.
The House of Lords, before the election, agreed on the importance of lay-led structures of local accountability. There is still great anxiety that the Government's proposals to replace the CHCs in England will confuse the public. It would be far better to have patient councils which could be reformed and made much more proactive and non-patchy. They would be independent and belong to the people.
Many people are strong supporters of their local health services, especially when they are good. The Government should be careful not to alienate the public by complicating the patient/public representation by fragmentation. People in need of advice and help should have a friendly body with an understandable name to which they can have easy access. I hope it is not too late for the Government to understand that.
Carrying on from yesterday's Question on patient complaints, I hope a really quick and efficient complaints procedure will be set up to replace the slow and cumbersome one which can drag on for a long time, causing frustration. People move on, which sometimes makes a clear picture difficult to comprehend. One needs to try and mediate wherever possible. Litigation is costing the NHS millions.
Getting those matters right is important, but with this Bill I wonder whether there will be even more fragmentation. A long time ago one of my grandfathers was a public health doctor in Glasgow. Public health is as important now as it was then; in fact, there seem to be even more new demands on the service now. There is concern that no one in government seems to be monitoring trends across the country.
Good data should be available on the whole population. With so many changes proposed in this Bill, can the Minister put his hand on his heart and say that there will be good planning, integration and coordination across the country so that the new arrangements will not bring islands of excellence and deserts of misery.
Public health includes epidemiology, health information, statistics, preventive medicine, health promotion, communicable diseases, environmental health, health surveillance, development and evaluation of health services, teaching and research. The Acheson Committee on Public Health in England in 1988 defined public health as,
"The science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through organised efforts of society".
It is understood that each strategic health authority will have a doctor with appropriate strategic management skills as a member of the executive team with responsibility for that, but that the doctor need not be a public health doctor. The BMA is concerned that with such flexibility of appointment to those key public health posts, at both PCT and SHA level, potentially some areas of the country may be without the expertise of the public health doctor. But the BMA

405
is pleased to see the creation of a public health director in the government regional offices. It is hoped that they will act as advocate for their patient population.
The BMA, while seeking to revise the structure of the NHS, believes that it is an opportunity missed not to consolidate and confirm the Government's commitment to the health of the population by defining the role and specifying the mechanisms of the new public health services on the face of the Bill. Perhaps it is not too late. I ask the Minister to consider tabling an amendment to that effect in Committee.
Is the Minister aware of the growing increase in sexually transmitted diseases? I pay tribute to the doctors and nurses in genito—urinary clinics who do a sensitive and difficult job that must remain confidential. Who will commission that much-needed service—which includes an increasing number of people with HIV and AIDS? Some social help—such as meals on wheels—has already been cut by local authorities. They have cut also the funding of children sent to the day centre family unit at Mildmay hospital in Hackney, which gives much-needed respite to desperately ill mothers with HIV, who can become isolated and lonely. Many of them are African. I read yesterday that London is the richest city in Europe. It makes me sad that society is becoming mean and uncaring towards the most needful, ill and disabled people trying to exist in the community.
I end on a hopeful note. Clause 21 is about joint working with the Prison Service. For many years, I served as a member of a board of visitors at a young offenders institution. Many of the young people had serious health problems that had been neglected for years. Many inmates—male or female—have serious mental health problems. Working closely together with the NHS and the Home Office can only help overcome some of the difficult problems, if funds are forthcoming.
I am concerned at a letter that I have just received from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in answer to a question that I put during a debate on national minimum care standards on 14th June, about the number of residential places available specifically for young people in England and Wales for the treatment of drug and alcohol abuse.
The Minister informs me that there are only about 20 such places because residential treatment is aimed at the most chaotic and complex cases. I am sure that the reason for there being so few places and so many closures is that local authorities do not want to fund such treatment.
I asked about alcohol abuse but that was not mentioned in the letter. Alcohol abuse is a growing problem, especially among young girls. The Minister will find hundreds of youngsters age 15 or 16 with drug or alcohol problems locked up in institutions. If that is not residential, what is? I hope that the Minister will soon visit young offender institutions, with a view to looking at the treatment of young people with drug and alcohol abuse problems. If they are in prisons, local authorities do not have to pay and can wash their hands of those difficult young people. Out of sight, out
406
of mind—but those young people eventually leave with a criminal record, more drug habits and more effective ways of committing crime.
That will be an added challenge to the National Health Service. The Government may find that they have opened a can of worms. I hope that the Minister will not always believe what his civil servants write but will go out and look for himself.
I am fortunate to be under the care of an enthusiastic surgeon in the prime of his life at a London hospital. One of his operating sessions has been cut. He is not exhausted but full of energy. He says that it is cheaper to have him sitting in his office than operating on patients. That does not make sense, when patients are being sent to France for operations. Why cannot such matters be sorted out before creating more muddle in our important health service? Reorganisation on reorganisation is expensive and makes staff insecure and confused. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has tabled his amendment.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the penetrating and thoughtful contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. She made reference to people with AIDS, the particular problems in the capital and London being the richest city in Europe. London also contains within its boundaries some of the most deprived districts in the country. Even within those districts there are pockets of enormous deprivation and problems. Clearly, we must look at specific localities, not just the city as a whole.
I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the London Ambulance Service, a senior associate of the King's Fund and a consultant to Wyeth. I am also a former director of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales.
The Bill makes an enormous contribution to the Government's progress with the national plan published in July 2000. The proposal to wind up regional offices and to give a new and clear role to a smaller number of strategic health authorities is sensible. That is about streamlining and bringing decisions closer to the communities affected by them—which will be beneficial. I do not share the cynicism of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about powers of direction. My recollection of NHS legislation over the years is that there have always been powers of direction. All the Bill does is replicate those functions.
Bringing decisions closer to the people affected by them is a way of increasing accountability and making sure that decisions are more relevant. I welcome also the proposal to strengthen the Commission for Health Improvement. The commission is gaining increased authority as it continues its work and is a vital part of ensuring that the NHS delivers high-quality services and is seen to do so.
Similarly, I welcome the proposed transparency in relation to the regulation of health professionals. I have never been entirely convinced by the benefits of

407
self-regulation. The Bill's proposals will enable codification of some of the differing standards and arrangements between the professions, which is a welcome development. I am pleased that the body overseeing that regulation will comprise a majority of lay people, not members of the professions themselves. That is an important step on the road to dispelling the belief that the professions are looking after their own rather than the public they are meant to serve.
I turn now to the proposals on patient and public involvement. Some noble Lords may remember that I was deeply critical of the initial proposals that emerged from the Government following the publication of the NHS Plan and the one-line statement that community health councils would be abolished. What was proposed then was, quite frankly, wrong and misconceived, and certainly ill thought out. Indeed, as the months have gone by, we have seen successive iterations and more thought has been given to particular elements, so that the proposals have changed and developed.
In October 2000 I introduced a short debate in your Lordships' House. At the time I set out certain principles that I thought were necessary in order to achieve an improvement on the existing system. I recognise that there have been and no doubt continue to be very wide variations in the quality of the work of CHCs. Many CHCs do outstanding work which is of enormously high quality. Some CHCs, however, carry out work which is of rather limited quality, while a handful of CHCs are, frankly, dysfunctional. If the proposals to abolish CHCs were in reality an intention to deal with the dysfunctional CHCs because there was no other mechanism, that would be an interesting approach to a problem soluble by other means, but it certainly would not be the only approach. The point I sought to put in the debate in October 2000 was that the Government were laying themselves open to the charge that they were sweeping away bodies that they found made uncomfortable criticisms, criticisms which perhaps they found difficult to deal with—removing people making waves and causing difficulties—and that there was a real danger, although I am sure it was one that Ministers and colleagues in the Department of Health would wish to avoid, of this being described as a form of control freakery.
I believe that, over the ensuing months, helped no doubt by the loss of the legislation and the intervening general election, the Government have managed to apply considerably more thought to the matter. Perhaps I may misquote Churchill, talking about the United States, when he said, "You can always rely on the Department of Health to do the right thing, but only after it has considered every conceivable alternative". We are now approaching the right thing so far as concerns patient and public involvement.
I believe that any system set up to represent the interests of the public and patients within the NHS has to have structures which are independent of the bodies it is monitoring and has to be well supported in what it does. It must be accessible and responsive to the
408
public's needs, and there must be clear pressure on NHS organisations to respond to what it is saying. The Government have proposed patients forums applying to each trust and to each PCT. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, expressed his concerns about the staffing support arrangements. Perhaps I have misinterpreted the Bill but I understood that his specific concern that staff supporting the new patients forums would come from local authorities and trusts had been overcome and that now there is a clear statement that the new commission for patient and public involvement in health will be the body to provide the staffing and support of the new bodies. Thus one of the concerns expressed in the past has been removed. That is a considerable step forward.
I turn now to the question of who will serve on the patients forums. I hope that, when he replies to the debate, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath will make it explicit that the process to be followed will be "Nolanesque", whereby those applying to take on these roles will be appointed on the basis of merit by an independent body, either the new commission for patient and public involvement in health or the new independent NHS Appointments Commission. It should be clearly differentiated from the arrangements that might exist if, say, the local trust or the strategic health authority were to make those appointments. The reason that is important is because otherwise there will be the danger of the health authority or the trust picking people they feel they can do business with, those who are going to be easy or satisfied with being consulted about such weighty matters as the colour of the bedspreads rather than wanting to focus on the most important issues affecting the quality of healthcare. The independent appointments process will be extremely important.
I hope that we shall also receive assurances from my noble friend Lord Hunt with regard to how staff appointed by the new commission will relate to the patients forums. I hope that, while they will be subject to quality and managerial control through the commission for patient and public involvement in health, there will also be a mechanism whereby the patients forums are able to direct at least a significant part of the work programme of those staff supporting them and that they will not simply be there to take the minutes and ensure that actions are followed through. The work programme should be set in part, perhaps the major part, by the patients forums concerned.
Another change, which I regard as a welcome development over the previous arrangements for CHCs, is that there is now to be a clear mechanism for the quality control of what will be patients forum work. There was no effective mechanism for the quality control of CHC work in the past. If there was a mechanism, it was exercised by the regional offices of the NHS, which were often unclear as to whether their role was to keep the CHCs in order or whether it was to encourage them to be innovative and difficult. That, too, is a development.
We also have, in the panoply of new organisations, the arrangements for the independent complaints and advocacy service. Again, the Government seem to

409
have listened to some of the concerns raised and have related those clearly to the new commission. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify precisely the relationships that are going to exist. Is it expected that ICAS services will be commissioned or run by people employed by the CPPIH, or will they form a part of the patients forum structures? Again, it is important that those bodies are seen explicitly to be independent and a long way away from the immediate structures of the trusts and health authorities that they are to monitor.
Because of the remit given to the commission in terms of the quality, standards and monitoring of activities in respect of the ICAS service, we have an opportunity to learn from the issues and complaints that are raised. One of my major concerns with regard to the previous proposals was that there was no method of integrating the lessons learnt from each of the new patients forums as a result of dealing with the complaints received so that that knowledge could be applied elsewhere in the NHS structure. I believe that the new commission will be able to provide that.
The Government have also heeded the warnings expressed by many noble Lords in respect of the PALS in trusts. Those are no longer regarded as advocacy bodies. They never could have been advocacy bodies; they will now provide advice and liaison services within the trust structure. They will be, as it were, a customer relations arm of the trust. That does not mean that they are a vital part of involving the patient and the public in the health service, but they will provide a valuable mechanism for improving the quality of service. The Government have learnt that.
The Government have also accepted the argument that it is possible for patients forums to refer matters to local authority overview and scrutiny committees. That, too, is an important change, one that has now been placed explicitly on the face of the legislation. That is to be welcomed.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to the national and strategic levels of patient and public involvement. At the national level, I believe that the creation of the new commission will form a vital part of the new arrangements. We shall need assurances about the appointments process to the new commission. We need to be assured that the Secretary of State understands that the commission must contain people who are going to be robust, who will be happy to be difficult and, if the occasion merits it, will be happy to stand up to the professionals and, if necessary, on occasion stand up to the Secretary of State. It may require a leap of faith by any Secretary of State to be comfortable with something like that not only now but also in the future. We need to be reassured that that is the understanding and mechanism by which that aim will be achieved.
Finally, on the strategic structure, we are told in some of the documentation circulated in recent weeks that at the strategic health authority level the patient and public involvement will be secured by the strategic health authority working with the patients forums of the PCTs with joint overview and scrutiny committees of local authorities to address issues. They will be
410
supported by the networks and staffing of the commission for patient and public involvement in health. That is workable. However, there are issues about how the work of the patients forums is coordinated at local level to ensure that there is no duplication and that the issues raised and lessons learned by the different patients forums are drawn together.
One small change to the Bill would solve the problem. Clause 15(1)(b) states that there will be a patients forum for each primary care trust. It should be explicit in the Bill that the forum applying to the primary care trust in each area should be the primus inter pares of patients forums for that district. It will be the patients forum relating to the body which is purchasing the bulk of local services. The body relates to a locality as opposed to a specific institution. If the Government can make that clear, and how such a patients forum will bring together the various strands of the work of the patients forum, the proposals will demonstrate an improvement on CHCs and ensure a stronger voice for patients and public within the NHS.
If the Government's objectives on making the NHS more responsive to the needs of patients are to be met, it is crucial that there is a strong and vibrant mechanism to ensure that such involvement takes place and that that voice is heard. That is almost here in the Bill. A few minor changes by the Minister will ensure that it occurs.
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords. I rise with some trepidation as I must declare an interest as a board member of the National Care Standards Commission. I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, would not be present to see this member of the quango rise to speak. I realise that the hour is late. I shall try not to repeat points raised but to talk about two issues about which I am concerned.
Perhaps I may make one point about the people who may come forward for many of the positions discussed. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, spoke about the issue. I speak as someone who has recruited over a number of years hundreds of volunteers in another field. There are hundreds of people out there of outstanding calibre who, with encouragement and a little training, could make a huge contribution to this nation's work. We should not be deterred. They are out there. They just need help. They are not always in the places where we choose to look. That is something I have learnt.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Care Standards Act 2000 created the new regulatory framework for all the currently regulated social care arid independent healthcare services. We were originally concerned about regulating the specialised healthcare field but we grasped the challenge with application. Having heard of depression among various parts of the organisations—I am sorry that the Minister is not now present to hear what I say—the National Care Standards Commission is in very good heart, very

411
enthusiastic and is grasping the challenge in the way that the Government envisages. That has not been easy. We have set up a new service across the country with 72 new offices, transferring hundreds of staff from local authorities and health services and recruiting new staff. When considering change in the current organisations, perhaps we might look at the management of that change and the continuing enthusiasm.
The regulations and national minimum standards for independent healthcare were developed with government after extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including patient groups. They give the NCSC powerful tools with which to ensure high quality patient care. We intend to use those powers judiciously and are confident that in the great majority of cases providers will wish to respond positively and share our concern that patients' and persons' interests should be uppermost in our methods and processes for inspection. I use the word "person" as well as "patient" because sometimes the word "patient" distances us from the people receiving our services.
We hope to work closely with CHI. However, the NCSC has powers at present which exceed those of CHI. The commission is able to grant or refuse applications, give permission on whether or not to operate, impose conditions such as the limiting of certain activities and ban admissions until urgent improvements have been demonstrably achieved. It is able to prosecute registered providers for breaches of the Care Standards Act and its regulations. Those are powers under the current legislation. They have been transferred. They are not extra, new powers which are being added to the burden of bureaucracy. They already exist.
I hope that the Minister will agree that those powers need time to become effective before there is further change. Having set up the organisation, with enthusiasm, it would be a great pity if the staff then found themselves in an insecure situation because further change, as indicated in another place, was on the books.
It is important to realise that the commission will not use those powers if there are other means of ensuring co-operation and improvements. Where necessary, we shall discuss at great length with service providers the provision that they are making unless there is a risk to health or well being. We have other ways of considering improvements. We will publish reports so that patients can see for themselves how well hospitals or clinics measure up to standards. Reports will include data on deaths, infection rates, complaints and other key performance indicators. That is a way of ensuring that we and the general public can see what is happening.
How shall we know what is going on? We have the power to interview a wide range of staff and to consult patients and other relevant parties. We hope that we shall do so with sensitivity and care. We can obtain any information reasonably required with certain restrictions on access to clinical records. The
412
inspection methods will require inspectors to triangulate sources of evidence to ensure that a comprehensive and accurate pictures are built up. We do not want partial information.
We shall be effective. The current system is weak. We have seen some of the results of that weakness. That is why the Government have brought in these radical reforms. The new legislation is more powerful and more relevant to modern services. The old legislation regulated only private hospitals as nursing homes. The new inspectorate will be trained, have greater expertise and, I hope, be better managed because it will be a single focus. It will stick to the knitting. It will not be diverted.
There is a real desire by the commission to record good ideas and new services. We shall take a holistic, not partial, view of services. We shall throughout consult with users. The executive at present is looking carefully at how that consultation can take place. I hope that that will form part of our learning from patients and people what they believe they need, as well as what we think they need.
That leads me on to a comment about the issues surrounding professional bodies. I am a social worker, and so I know all about criticism. I have been a director of social services and I know all about interference. I would feel more sympathy towards my colleagues in the various medical professional bodies if they were more flexible in changing themselves to meet modern services and modern needs.
The light-hearted remark of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, spoke for itself when he said that adversity draws people together. I was at a meeting this afternoon where we were discussing long-term care and the development of strategic services for severely physically disabled people. It became very clear that chief executives in that field are having difficulties in engaging the various colleges in understanding what is needed and gaining a response.
Demarcations between aspects of social and physical care are becoming obscure; they are slowly eroding. Certain care professionals are having delegated to them responsibility for some medical care, and issues in regard to insurance have developed in some areas but not in others.
Little expertise in relation to long-term disability care is being developed within hospitals because people do not stay in hospital any more; they get most of their care outside. Therefore, if you find yourself in residential accommodation, it is very difficult to get that care transferred into your service. With more disabled people surviving longer and more elderly people becoming disabled, change in this area is urgent if we are to meet the needs of our communities.
I am not a great advocate of constant change—I have lived through enough local authority reorganisations to know how much energy it can take—but I fear that it is here to stay. We need to find a way of ensuring that the change is positive and grasped, and that the energy released is not lost but goes towards patient and person care.

413
I hope that the Bill moves forward. Amendments arc needed, but at least we have already started to put some of the services in place—a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham and the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It would be a great pity if they cannot now move forward.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I shall focus on the provisions in the Bill which relate specifically to Wales, as did the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I make no apology for that because the NHS is of great importance to Wales, and the Welsh proposals represent a major change.
The proposals have been highly controversial for a number of reasons. First, of course, they were not approved by a plenary session of the National Assembly until after the Bill had received its Second Reading in the other place. This was not the way that primary legislative proposals from the Assembly were meant to he handled, if I understand the Government of Wales Act correctly. They should first have been approved by the Assembly before being presented to this Parliament. It simply cannot be right for the UK Parliament to approve proposals for primary legislation in a devolved area such as health before the National Assembly has fully endorsed them. I am sure that the Government are aware of this because I have raised the matter previously on the Floor of the House.
The Government will also be aware that the conflict between the Assembly's timetable for its discussions and the Government's legislative timetable here at Westminster may well be used in due course as a dubious argument for the transfer of primary legislative powers to the Assembly. I would strongly advise the Government to get to grips with the problems in this area—and the sooner, the better.
But let me give credit where credit is due. I was delighted when the Minister responsible for health in Wales at the Assembly, Jane Hutt, came to your Lordships' House on Monday last to talk about the Welsh aspects of the Bill with interested Peers. I hope that by coming here she has set a precedent for other Assembly Ministers requiring primary legislation and that she will he the harbinger of more such informative visits.
The second reason why the Welsh proposals are controversial is their content. The Labour/Liberal administration in Cardiff proposes to abolish the five existing health authorities and substitute 22 local health boards, coterminous with the local government unitary authorities and based on local health groups—the Welsh equivalent of English primary care trusts. They will exercise a range of functions, subject to directions from the Assembly. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, that it is very unclear exactly who will have responsibility for some of the functions currently allocated to the area health authorities.
The 15 health trusts in Wales are to be retained for the time being—bar one. There are those—including Mr Win Griffiths, MP, the former Health Minister at
414
the Welsh Office, as I was a long time ago—who believe that the trusts would have been a sounder basis for an alliance, as proposed in England, but they have not persuaded the administration in Cardiff.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is right to say that the thrust behind these proposals is devolutionary—power to the lowest level—but he will be aware, as I am, that there has been criticism that the administration is taking devolution a step too far in this context and that the proposals are too complex and impracticable. There is some validity—a dangerous validity—in this criticism.
The local health boards, which will have about 20 members—I am not exaggerating—will be supported by, I am told, between 10 and 12 non-statutory bodies to ensure effective partnership arrangements in the formulation of health strategies, as envisaged in Clause 22. There will also be three regional offices. as we have heard, and a "complex web"—that description belongs to the Minister. Jane Hutt—of national bodies with specific functions and responsibilities. So there is a curious centralising tendency in this restructuring, as well as the devolutionary bias.
Understandably, doubts persist about the bureaucratic and somewhat confused nature of these proposals and their relevance to the current problems of the NHS in Wales, where the numbers of people on waiting lists of one kind or another have doubled since 1997 in spite of increased spending and a 9 per cent increase in staffing.
Nevertheless, the administration appears determined to go ahead. There is a national steering group in place, chaired by the Minister, and an implementation group, chaired by the director of the NHS in Wales, and no fewer than nine task forces to execute the planned reforms.
Your Lordships will know that while the Government decided to abolish community health councils in England, the Assembly decided to preserve them in Wales—where, indeed, as I understand it, their role is to he extended. There are no fewer than 20 community health councils in Wales. That adds to the impression of a scattered, bottom-heavy organisation—all Indians and no chiefs. if I may put it that way.
The entire restructuring begs the question of where the strategic direction is to come from. True, there is to be a health and well-being partnership council, headed by the Minister, but the word "strategic" is missing from its description in the administration's consultative document Structural Change in the NHS in Wales. The new authorities in England have "strategic" in their title. That emphasises the point of difference. None of us with experience of the N HS doubts the need for firm strategic direction.
The Conservative Opposition in the Assembly favour a single health authority for Wales, responsible for planning and commissioning all services and having overall responsibility for the NHS to the Welsh Assembly. That would have the merit of taking politicians out of the day-to-day running of the health

415
service, which would be commendable to many who feel that the NHS in Wales is currently a little too politicised and in danger of becoming more so with direct funding from the centre and closer links with local government.
The Welsh clauses and schedules in the Bill are largely concerned with the establishment and funding of the local health boards and their collaboration with local authorities in the formulation of health and wellbeing strategies. We shall have to wait for the draft Bill on the NHS in Wales—promised in the Queen's Speech and expected later this year—to see the full and final shape of the NHS in Wales.
I understand that both Welsh Liberal Democrat Members of the other place voted against the Bill—not in a show of solidarity with their colleagues in Cardiff. One of the most remarkable criticisms came from the right honourable Denzil Davies, the Labour MP for Llanelli, who is a former Treasury Minister. He also voted against the Bill on the grounds that the proposals would lead to,
"the most bureaucratic health service in western Europe".— [Official Report, Commons, 20/11/01; col. 250.]
I hope that he is wrong, but I fear that he may be right.
My preliminary view is that the proposed restructuring will do little except obscure—and possibly worsen—the current difficulties of the NHS in Wales by diverting precious resources from the front line of patient care. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. It is reported that there is a 10 per cent vacancy rate among consultants in Wales and that there are 200,000 patients waiting for a hospital appointment. That is a very serious situation in a country of 3 million people.
As for the longer term, the holistic approach implied by closer links with local authorities makes sense up to a point. Of course there is a connection between people's health, their environment and social services provision, but establishing the connection and developing it meaningfully will not end ill health. There will always be the acute sector, accident and emergency and so on.
The inherent danger in the proposals is the creation of a low-quality, costly and paralysing local bureaucracy. If it does not make sense to have five health authorities, how on earth does it make sense to create 22, which will probably be of lower quality, together with more supervisory bodies at national level icing the organisational cake?
A survey last year showed that 80 per cent of Welsh NHS Confederation members did not believe that there was sufficient capacity to sustain the management and support of 22 local health boards. They may well be right. I am not as sanguine as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
416
There is a certain amount of confused thinking stamped on the proposals, which are mainly permissive, therefore leaving scope for more confusion. I hope that we shall examine them more closely in Committee.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he concede that Mr Roger Williams spoke strongly in favour of the Welsh proposals on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons? However, because of the mixture of the Welsh provisions with the English provisions, he was constrained to vote with the Conservatives.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord understands that had his honourable friend's vote prevailed, the Welsh clauses of which he approved would also have been lost, along with the rest of the Bill.
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, at this stage it is difficult to imagine that there is anything left to say, after the well informed speeches that we have heard. However, like everyone here, I have a personal interest in healthcare and a particular interest in the health service. Because of the nature of the concept of the National Health Service, I make no apology for returning briefly to the basic facts of its setting up.
When the National Health Service came into being, it was rightly celebrated as something new and dynamic, providing help for those who were most in need. From its inception, the National Health Service has echoed three national values: fairness, equality and universality. Those three values are as pertinent today as they were 50 years ago. The NHS provides fairness by providing treatment consistent with need. It provides equality by ensuring that all users receive treatment to the same standard. It provides universality by providing the same standard of treatment throughout the UK. Today. the practicalities of running the health service have challenged those values.
Years of underfunding and a new society that has higher expectations of what a modern health service should provide now demand fundamental changes to the way in which it operates. The health service has always done its best, but it is not just a question of how close it can come to helping the public; it is now time to define what the public want and to modify the health service to fit those needs.
Someone asked whether we needed a revolution. The answer is, not really. The Bill is a brave step to capture what is required, confirming the Government's commitment to reforming, not rejecting—reforming working practices, but not rejecting a service that is free at the point of use and available to all in need.
The Bill is a step change, drawing to a close the days of "doctor knows best" and empowering users to make an informed choice about the care that they receive. I am disappointed that the opportunity has been missed

417
to introduce patient councils, because patients' wishes should be given high consideration when modernising the health service.
I also urge Ministers to listen to the Royal Colleges. They are not all stereotypical, high-inertia, retrospective organisations, unwilling to accept reform, as they are sometimes perceived. In fact, they could be forward-looking, professional bodies which agree that the time has come for change within the health service.
I am sure that the Government will accept that health professionals have seen reforms, changes, and initiatives come and go, to limited effect. We must accept that this climate of change breeds a certain amount of cynicism. Being "on the shop floor", so to speak, these self-same professionals have very clear opinions on what must be done to improve standards of care. These opinions are mostly founded on evidence-based research and reviews of current practice undertaken by college members. I ask: why not examine what the Royal Colleges are saying, and work with them through consensus?
I know that health service personnel, especially midwives, are at a very low ebb at the moment. A major contributor to this low morale is the perception among staff that, given the proper resources, they could provide a higher standard of care for the public. However, even with resources, we are all aware that they cannot do so without reform. I believe that that is what the Government are trying to do now in order to provide more commitment and better standards of care to individual users. Some of the innovations needed by the health service are already in use, as I heard today. There are examples of midwives changing their working practices to provide more care for women, even though it sometimes results in staff working longer hours.
Another factor in these circumstances contributing to low staff morale is the low level of pay compared to that in the private sector. Again, in midwifery, many people are entering the service every year, but we know that almost as many skilled staff are leaving. The Deputy General Secretary of the Royal College of Midwives describes this as,
"running a bath with the plug out".
Pay has risen relative to inflation, but it is still a long way behind what it should be. I believe that this Bill will allow equitable standards by allowing the trusts to decide on their pay levels.
The proposed new role for primary care trusts in the planning and delivery of healthcare is pivotal in respect of the strategic targeting of resources. The location and style of primary care delivery will decide whether or not these reforms are successful. PCTs can take this opportunity to provide services that actively engage communities—a model that has proved to be both efficient and effective.
I support the Government's view that healthcare professionals should have more autonomy in their respective fields. Midwife-led maternity units are proving a success with staff and women alike, because women benefit from continuous care. With the
418
enhanced role being give in this Bill to the Commission for Health Improvement I ask that healthcare specialists are consulted on guidelines and framework development. By working with these professionals we shall achieve the best outcome for the public.
In conclusion, when considering working with all stakeholders, health service administrators, health service professionals, especially as regards the Government's new initiative of patient forums, I dare to propose that great care is taken to ensure that due attention is given to the diversity within the nation. In that way we shall develop a health service that meets all of our requirements and thereby leave a lasting legacy to those who come after us. As this Bill passes through the House, we can be truly proud that it will create the sort of service that we would all wish to have.
7.54 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, this has been an extremely important debate. When this morning I read the speech of my noble friend Lord. Clement-Jones condemning the Bill, I must say that I thought the Minister, being a very reasonable sort of chap, should simply put up his hands and say, "You're right. I am sorry; we'll think again". When I heard the tour de force of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, 1 knew that that was what the Minister should do. Two hours of the debate had gone by before there was any real expression of' support for the Minister; namely, from the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. Even then, she warned of the dangers of putting into place a new inspection system for care standards, only to replace it with another in short order—a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth.
If one looks at the National Health Service historically, one sees that it is a history of organisation and reorganisation. When I taught medical students at University College London the history of their NHS, it was a catalogue of such reorganisations. In the early years there were gaps of five years, or so, and sometimes longer. But in recent years the pace of attempted change has sped up and become faster and faster. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned that 17 changes had taken place during his career. On Second Reading in another place, Stephen Dorrell gave a very telling commentary on more recent history when he said:
"Sir Keith Joseph invented district health authorities, area health authorities and regional health authorities; Patrick Jen kin abolished area health authorities; Norman Fowler introduced general managers … Kenneth Clarke introduced trusts and fundholders … Virginia Bottomley reorganised social care".— [Official Report, Commons, 20/11/01; col. 227]
He admitted to abolishing family health services authorities. Does he believe that it helped? I think not.
I understand the Minister's frustration. The Government claim to be putting more money into the service. They would be more believable if they did riot announce and re-announce allocation of the same funds. They certainly needed to put more money in, given the starvation of the health service over so many preceding years. Yet they seem not to be able to turn things around. They announce more money for

419
cancer. It is top-sliced all the way down by managers trying to fill black holes. It does not get to where it was supposed to be, and both patients' and clinicians' disappointment and anger become all the more palpable because of the promises made and broken. No wonder the Minister despairs. He tries to pull a lever in Whitehall and nothing happens on the ground.
So decentralisation is the order of the day. But is it? The noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned Big Brother in Nineteen Eighty-Four. I believe that we can see double-speak here, too. The Minister talks about decentralisation; yet, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones have pointed out, the opposite is the case. Instead, we have 58 new powers for the Secretary of State and another layer of management.
What, in their desperation to achieve change, are the Government proposing? Barely months from full-scale reorganisation we have another set of reorganisations. Perhaps the re-creation of district health authorities might do it. Alternatively, let us try again to break up one of the potential voices of criticism; namely, the CHCs. But, even here, there may be a laudable aim of giving patients a greater voice. But in these proposed changes the patient is viewed from the inside—as someone who knows his or her way around the health service, not as someone who most of the time does not want to think about the service. People just want to know that it is there when it is needed. The Government seem to think that greater control over the professions would sort out such problems. So they decide to set up a quango to oversee them. I do not doubt that the Government's heart is in the right place in that they genuinely support the NHS, although clearly they sometimes wish that it would go away.
Surely the Government have enough collective memory to realise that this reorganisation on top of reorganisation is unlikely to produce the change that they say they seek. They know that or they would not have asked Professor Ian Kennedy to report on the lessons from Bristol, or Mr Adair Turner to look at NHS structures and report in the autumn. But they are already looking down the track to the next general election with real and deserved trepidation. When the Prime Minister says that unless the Government turn round the NHS they will have failed, Mr Milburn and his colleagues must quake in their shoes. Hence we have action at any price.
I should like to remind your Lordships of some of the contributions to the debate. I note that the noble Baroness and former Minister, Lady Hayman, slipped away without choosing to speak.
Both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones gave devastating critiques of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, spoke most effectively of his concern about the possible deterioration of quality—not improvements—as a result of these changes.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, gently gave warnings that were profound and grave. He spoke of the Bill being a danger to tertiary services, preventive
420
medicine and public health. Although he approves of the Government's apparent aspiration to improve the public accountability of the medical profession, he said that, rather than public accountability, we were heading towards state control. Although he clearly credited the Government with good intentions, he gave no reasons for not abandoning the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, noted that no sooner was one upheaval over than another began. As we have heard, it is worse than that. No sooner is one upheaval under way than another is initiated. As the noble and learned Lord said, we are indeed right to be alarmed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out that the profession is exhausted, time is needed for change, and much is likely to be lost from further change—points that were explored further by the noble Baronesses, Lady McFarlane, Lady Hanham and Lady Masham. "Stop meddling", said the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, "Governments are hopeless managers". The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham spoke of the immense human cost of yet another reorganisation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, and the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, expressed concern, as have other Lords, about the abolition of CHCs. Meanwhile, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, summed up a theme that has run through this debate when he spoke of an NHS in despair, the Government defending the indefensible, and proposals that should be consigned to the dustbin where they belong.
Most of your Lordships were here for the debate and heard those contributions made far more eloquently than I could. I remind you of them because if the Government ride roughshod over this barrage of criticism—criticism that crosses all parties and none, when all today have made very clear their commitment to the NHS—they are not only foolhardy, they are simply destructive.
Ultimately, the question we have to ask is whether the proposals will improve patient care. Will these measures help to recruit and retain the staff so badly needed to assist patients? Will they help to build patient and public involvement in the NHS? Will they provide the resources needed to bring the health service up to European standards? Are they more helpful than damaging?
As our debate has so dramatically shown, the Bill passes none of those tests. I think that the Minister knows in his heart of hearts—he has a lot of experience in the health service—that that is the case. The lack of support he has received from his Benches bears that out. I trust that the Minister, being that reasonable chap, will indeed rethink.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, this has been a good debate with contributions from some real experts in NHS matters. However, the whole concept behind the Bill has been opposed in very powerful speeches by my noble friend Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady

421
Northover. I almost felt sorry for the Minister, especially as he received so little support from his own Benches.
We have heard from many noble Lords about the big problems with the Bill, which has been characterised by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe as part of an endless marathon of monolithic upheaval. We have also heard about the increasing centralisation and lack of readiness in PCGs and PCTs. There are also huge concerns about the new council for the regulation of health care professionals. The noble Lords, Lord Turnberg and Lord Walton of Detchant, and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane. spoke powerfully about those concerns.
We have also heard much about the Government's further attempts to murder our old friend the CHCs, on which many noble Lords spoke, particularly my noble friend Lord Freeman.
The bottom line is that many of the proposals are wrong or unnecessary. They will absorb time that could be spent doing other things in the NHS. As my noble friend Lady Han ham said, for many NHS staff who are already severely overworked, the proposals may even be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
The Bill does not address the big issues in the NHS such as waiting lists, decimation of the care home sector, deteriorating A&E facilities and the "national disgrace"—as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege described it—of having to send patients abroad to be treated. Morale among doctors and nurses is bad. What will the Bill do to address those issues? It will do absolutely nothing. That is why so many despair at this Government.
Instead, before the ink is even dry on the page, the Government are creating more instability and uncertainty. The Secretary of State has already announced his next round of reforms involving the private sector and foundation hospitals. He has already given the response to the Bristol inquiry, promising more changes. I offer my deepest sympathy to the Minister for having to bring this Bill to your Lordships' House while knowing that the rules are already being rewritten.
I noted the wish of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham for the NHS to be left alone after this round of reorganisation. All I can say to him is "dream on". We know that the desire for change does not stop at Richmond House but is alive and well in the Treasury, with Mr Wanless's review, and in No. 10 Downing; Street with the secretive study being done by Mr Adair Turner. So we expect the Minister to be back before us with yet another round of so-called modernisation reforms. We on these Benches therefore have much sympathy with the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
I shall not address Welsh issues as they have been ably covered by my noble friend Lord Roberts, but I should like to address some of the others. In doing so, I make no apology for returning to the themes of over-centralisation and haste.
422
The Government pretended in their document, Shifting the Balance of Power, to be keen on decentralisation and passing powers down to the front line. If the NHS were a genuinely open organisation, the Secretary of State would not have issued his consultation document with a consultation period of only six weeks during the summer holidays. He also would not have pressed ahead with plans to demolish two-thirds of health authorities and foist responsibilities on to an unready primary care sector until he had genuinely listened and consulted.
No one in the NHS was surprised al. the Secretary of State's actions. They were not surprised when the chief executives and boards of the new strategic health authorities were put in place by the end of last year, before this Bill had even completed its passage in another place. They were not surprised that PCTs were being created or merged regardless of what local doctors said. They have all grown used to a dictatorship since 1997.
The Secretary of State is relentlessly pursuing his proposals without regard for those who have to implement them. There are very real concerns about the pace of change for PCTs. That matter has been raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and, indeed, the right reverend Prelate. Many questions need to be asked about the capacity of new PCTs across the board to deal with the new responsibilities for commissioning and public health, whether they have chief executives who are up to the task and whether they have adequate IT. Important points were made during the debate about whether or not specialist services will be commissioned adequately by these new organisations, which have limited capabilities at present.
However, the concerns are not only just about the speed of change but also about the kind of arrangements that will be in place once the reforms are implemented. We should not be fooled—the Secretary of State is not giving up powers in a real sense; he is gaining powers. The Bill tells us nothing about the new regional directors of health and social care recently created. These are the Secretary of State's creatures who carry out his wishes behind the scenes. We had an example of that only last week when the regional director for the South East told the NHS in the South East to stop spending money—that is code for "stop treating patients"—so that the books would balance. The accountability of these directors is an important issue and one to which I hope that we shall return in Committee.
I shall now turn to the financial aspects of the Bill. The Government should be concerned about the finances of the NHS but the plain fact is they have now learnt how to put money into the NHS but have not learnt how to get anything out of it. Despite the increased money that is now going in, the Government are getting precious little in return. For example, elective acute activity actually fell in the quarter to June 2001. There is nothing in the Bill that will make it more likely that taxpayers will get value for money from these extra resources. In the short term there will be a cost to these reforms. The financial section of the

423
Explanatory Notes tells us nothing about the transitional costs but they are likely to be significant. Will the Minister say what additional costs are being incurred in creating these new structures and implementing the provisions of the Bill? Will he ensure that all NHS bodies and the Department of Health are recording all of the transitional and ongoing additional costs so that we can look at extra costs in due course and compare them with the benefits?
Will the Minister say what has happened to the much trumpeted £100 million of management cost savings? That was even included in the Labour Party's manifesto with the promise that it would be available for "investment in frontline services". But no one in the NHS thinks that there will be any net saving from the Bill. How on earth could there be—the Bill will turn 95 health authorities into 28 strategic ones and over 300 PCTs carrying out health authority functions?
Paragraph 199 of the Explanatory Notes states that there will be,
"savings in management over time".
But in the next breath—that is, the next sentence—it states that there will be no increases or decreases in manpower. In all of my experience of the NHS I have never found out how to save money without reducing manpower. I ask the Minister what has happened to the £100 million, or is it just another election promise already broken?
There are other financial features of the Bill to which I am sure we shall return in due course. For example, the Secretary of State will retain full control over the financial levers of the NHS. He will decide upon allocations to PCTs in the usual non-transparent way. He will hold powers to give and take back so-called "performance fund moneys" based on his assessment of performance. He will be able to judge performance based on criteria determined after the event. In fact, he will have all of the powers that Stalin would have devised for himself if he were Secretary of State.
Lastly, I come to the Commission for Health Improvement. Potentially, CHI is a good thing for the NHS, especially if it can concentrate on its important inspection role and not get dragged into star ratings and other gimmicks. It provides an opportunity for independent evaluation of the NHS. But CHI has to be genuinely independent and for as long as it has to go cap in hand to the Secretary of State for its finances it will never be independent, even after the modest changes in the Bill. I hope that we shall examine in Committee how to ensure the proper independence of CHI. We believe that the remit of CHI, especially a properly independent CHI, should be broader. It is perhaps pleasing to note that the Secretary of State now appears to be a convert to that view.
There are too many bodies operating in the broad field of standards of care. There is no need for a separate national care standards commission. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, who was enthusiastic about the task of that commission. But there is no need for a separate body.
424
There is no need for a separate national patient safety authority. There is no need for NICE to be separate. There is a glaring omission in CHI's remit in relation to public health services. The Bill should deal with those kinds of core issue rather than peripheral ones such as CHI's relationship with the Audit Commission which is, incidentally, a properly independent body.
This is a disappointing Bill. It does not address the right issues. Its main effect is to give legislative cover for a harmful process; namely, the increasing pressures put on the NHS through yet another unnecessary restructuring. I know that noble Lords will work valiantly to try to improve the Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House but it is a pity that we cannot spend our time more fruitfully and leave the NHS to get on with the job of delivering patient care.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been a very good debate. Every noble Lord who has spoken has brought a great deal of experience, expertise and knowledge of the National Health Service to the debate. I was struck by the warmth with which the Bill was received. I look forward to a short Committee stage in which we shall no doubt tease out one or two of the issues that we have discussed so far.
Of course, the test of the Bill is the test which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, posed to me; that is, will the Bill help improve patient care? I want to answer in the affirmative. As my noble friends Lord Harris of Haringey and Lady Howells suggested, far from being the over-centralisation feared by some noble Lords, what the Bill essentially seeks to do is to lead to a patient-led, decentralised NHS operating within a framework of central, national standards regulated independently. Those national standards will give the NHS the ability to decentralise and to let go to a much greater extent than has ever occurred in the health service before. It is in that context that I am convinced that through these changes we shall ensure that the innovation and the leadership that we need at local level will be enhanced and that through that we shall deliver much more effective and sensitive patient services.
I listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and to the points that they made about centralisation versus decentralisation. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked about initiative overdrive. I point out to the noble Lord that I have had the great pleasure of responding to debates instituted by him over three and-a-half years. I cannot remember one instance in which the noble Lord has asked the Department of Health to withdraw from an instruction that has been given to the NHS. The tenor of all the points that he has put to me during those three-and-a-half years has been for more regulation, more instruction and more direction for the health service. Even the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who is in the guise of an arch-decentraliser this week, asked me only a week ago to earmark specific funding for the cost of decisions of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

425
My purpose in making those remarks is to point out that there is a real debate—and, I think, dilemma— between centralisation and decentralisation in a national health service when Ministers are accountable to Parliament. If my noble friend Lord Bruce were here, he would remind us of the debates in the post-war Labour administration between Bevan and Morrison about whether or not the NHS should fall within local government. It was eventually decided that there should be a national health service but the intention was to decentralise as much as possible to the local level. Governments of both parties since 1948 have increasingly found that balance very difficult.
In that context, I also refer to many—at least four or five—of the previous government's efforts on restructuring. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, referred to the 1974 reorganisation. Noble Lords will remember that, disastrously, it took away powers from local hospitals. I remember working in a hospital in Oxfordshire where about 10 hoards were abolished and one health authority took over the whole county. I also refer to the internal market reorganisation of 1991. Part of that was about decentralisation. However, because it took place in the absence of national standards and a national inspectorate—many of us pleaded at the time with Kenneth Clarke to introduce a national inspectorate along with decentralisation—we ended up with a bureaucratic morass. As soon as that government found problems with the local implementation of those reforms, they immediately galloped in to ensure that the so-called internal market was very much inhibited.
I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege; namely, that the lesson for all governments is that we have to stop tinkering and interfering and allow the health service to get on with the job. The conditions under which that must happen in a national service include ensuring that we have national standards and a national framework. That is why we produced national service frameworks and set up NICE—an independent inspectorate to check that things are satisfactory and that high standards are being developed. In that context, it is perfectly possible to withdraw from the micro-management of the health service. That is what we are seeking to do.
I listened with great interest to the comments of a number of noble Lords on the King's Fund report. It is an excellent report, and I agree with much of its thrust. I am not particularly keen on the public corporation idea. I await with keen interest to see how many amendments the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, will table in Committee to allow us to debate that. The problem with the public corporation model is that there is no guarantee that, having created a public corporation, it would not be as centralist as any micro-management from Whitehall. That is why our approach—national standards, an independent inspectorate and devolution to local bodies—is the right way forward.
Noble Lords will know that last month my right honourable friend the Secretary of State met the chief executives of the three-star trusts. That was not a
426
gimmick; they are people who have succeeded in improving the quality of care. They argued, in discussion with the department and Ministers, that we should look at the governance of NHS trusts to see whether we can go further and give them greater independence in future. That is where the whole concept of foundation hospitals comes in. That is well worth pursuing. The more independence that one can give those local institutions, the more involvement there is and the greater the ownership by local communities, the more we can make this new set of arrangements work effectively.
I say that by way of introduction—it is the basic philosophy of what we seek to achieve. I turn to specific points about the Bill. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham—who, like a number of noble Lords, was a member of a regional health authority some years ago—that the title -strategic" health authority is deliberate. We regard the 28 health authorities as being strategic, rather than seeking to micro-manage the local health service. The importance of primary care trusts comes into play in that regard.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Chan, asked about the pace of change in creating primary care trusts. I accept that one route for the evolution of PCTs would be to take a staged approach to their introduction. However, I am satisfied, having talked to many in the health service and those working within PCTs and primary care groups, that, on balance, it is better to move quickly to a structure in which PCTs cover the whole country. As my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley said, primary care is of such importance that we need to get on quickly with those trusts.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and other noble Lords asked about the capacity of PCTs to take on the very great responsibilities that they are being given. Unlike some noble Lords, who seemed to be i n a rather negative frame of mind tonight, I am optimistic. Judging by the PCTs that I have visited and the innovation that I have seen, I think that they can rise to the challenge. They are already getting to grips with some of the big problems in primary care and in commissioning. I have no doubt that, with enthusiasm—and if good quality people go into PCTs—they will rise to the challenge. We are setting up development programmes to help managers. People will move from health authorities into PCTs and we are taking a close interest in the training programme for chairs and non-executives. PCTs have an awful lot of expertise and can make significant contributions.
Several questions were asked about specialist services. The intention is that PCTs will be responsible for commissioning specialised services for their population. They will be accountable to the strategic health authorities. That will enable the health service as a whole to ensure that that is done effectively.
I turn to the vitally important issue of public health. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friends Lady Pitkeathley and Lord Turnberg asked

427
various questions about where the public health function fits in with the new arrangements. The key decision is that the key public health body will be the PCTs. That is absolutely right because it is the PCT that relates to a population. Requiring PCTs to appoint a director of public health—in making that vital connection between primary care and public health—we have the makings of a very strong public health function.
I listened with keen interest to the comments of my noble friend Lord Turnberg about the whole issue of public health surveillance. We are taking forward discussions in light of the CMO's report. The intention is to ensure that whoever has that function and however it is delivered, there will be an integrated approach. I am very happy to discuss that further with my noble friend.
Again, I should expect PCTs to take a strong role in relation to sexual health, and in particular in relation to commissioning services. I readily acknowledge that that is a very serious area. The rise in sexually transmitted illnesses is a big problem and we must ensure that GUM services meet the challenge that is faced.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, will he assure the House that there will be confidentiality? Some people do not want to go locally for that type of service.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. I very much accept that point. Of course, the devolvement of commissioning resources for sexual health services to primary care trusts does not in any way detract from the issue of confidentiality. I believe it is worth remarking that some very good people have entered that field over the years. We are seeing an improvement in both the quality and quantity of services. However, there is a tremendous demand on those services and, through the commissioning process, we shall have to ensure that sufficient services are commissioned in the future.
I turn to the issue of CHI. I am glad that, in general, the comments about CHI have been positive. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in particular referred to the potential of CHI. I agree. I believe that it has made a good start. The reviews of clinical governance have been helpful. They are certainly starting to bite in the health service, and I am confident that CHI can take on the wider responsibility that we now envisage.
I say to my noble friend Lord Turnberg, who is chair of HQS—I was previously a chair of that organisation—that I very much value the work that it does. Through the Bill, we are enabling the functions of CHI to be discharged to another person. Therefore, it is possible that other organisations can be used once the Bill is enacted. I would certainly always encourage CHI to work with other relevant organisations. I also accept the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, who found that the CHI review was both helpful and constructive.
428
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, sought to highlight what I can only describe as the rather extraordinary suggestion that I have been inconsistent with my comments in debates on the Care Standards Bill. I carefully re-read my comments and I can assure the noble Lord that they contain a coherent thread of consistency. When we debated that Bill, we were starting with two new bodies. At that time we considered it right that regulation of private healthcare should be different from arrangements for the management of the health service. I am sure that some noble Lords will remember that argument.
I also stressed the need for close collaboration between CHI and NICE on the regulation of independent healthcare. They are already permitted to subcontract work to each other. As the NHS has developed, it has become absolutely clear that the inter-relationship between the NHS and the private sector is an ever more important factor in dealing with the capacity issues that we face in the health service. We have also had the Kennedy report.
Building on that, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has talked about the need for closer working between the various inspectorate bodies—not only CHI and the National Care Standards Commission but also the Social Services Inspectorate and the Audit Commission—so that health and social care services are subject to a common set of standards, whether they are provided by public, private or voluntary sector organisations. It seems to me that we are seeking to develop what we started. It also seems that we are seeking to ensure consistency and not an over-bureaucratic approach to regulation and inspection, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, suggested.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister. However, the Secretary of State specifically used the word "integration". Precisely what plans are there for that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as he suggested, we are currently developing our ideas on work in that area in the light of what Kennedy said. Obviously, when that work has been resolved, we shall bring it to the attention of noble Lords.
I was delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, spoke about the work of the National Care Standards Commission. I hope that she can be persuaded to stay on for our subsequent debates on regulations concerning the commission. I believe that hearing about the way in which the commission goes about its work produces a great deal of confidence. As part of the review, I look forward to constructive discussions between the National Care Standards Commission, the Commission for Health Improvement and the other regulatory bodies.
I turn to the question of community health councils on which many comments have been made in our debate. Noble Lords will know that my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and I were two of the first CHC secretaries to be appointed in the 1970s. Therefore, I do not come to this debate with a lack of knowledge

429
about the experience, potential and performance of CHCs. But one has to say that their performance has been very patchy over the past 25 years. The ultimate test is the extent to which the public and patients feel involved in the National Health Service and the extent to which services provided in the National Health Service are informed by user experience. For all the tremendous work carried out by CHC staff and members over the past 27 years, I do not believe that at the end of the day one can say that they have succeeded to the extent hoped for in the early 1970s.
The test of our proposals is: will they produce more effective, more efficient and vigorous patient and public involvement in the health service? I have no hesitation whatever in saying that they will. Patients forums will be independent. The national commission will, as my noble friend Lord Harris suggested, provide the quality control that has been missing. 'The work of PALS at the local trust level will ensure that problems are dealt with as they arise. There will also be independent advocacy and the overview and scrutiny committee of local government. Combined, I have no doubt that they will pack a very powerful punch.
As my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey suggested, over the past 18 months we have listened to the debate and have made changes. Even as the Bill was being discussed in the other place, we removed the Secretary of State's power to veto the appointments of the chief executive and staff of the commission. We introduced an explicit power for patients forums to refer matters of concern to local authority overview and scrutiny committees. We made a change to the accounting arrangements for patients forums so that they will now receive their funding via the commission rather than via their local trusts. We have ensured that the local independent complaints advocacy service will be commissioned by the national commission, which will also monitor the effectiveness of that independent service. We have ensured that PALS will be based in trusts but have also ensured that each independent patients forum will monitor the local PALS and will have the power to remove a failing PAL from the trust.
The board of the commission will be appointed by the NHS Appointments Commission, with the Secretary of State appointing the chair. However, I can say to my noble friend Lord Harris that that appointment will be subject to the Nolan procedures.
So far as concerns membership of the patients forums, I was surprised that doubts were expressed about people in the community coming forward to serve on those bodies. I believe that being a patients forum member will be a very exciting and invigorating job. It will be closely linked to the NHS trusts and will be close to where services are provided for the public. I believe that there will be every possibility of attracting very high calibre people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, mentioned an issue that she raised on the previous occasion 'we debated this matter. She asked how the non-executive director from the patients forum would be appointed to the board. That matter is clearly still under discussion. I know that the noble Baroness is
430
concerned about how such appointees would take part in corporate discussions. I say to the noble Baroness that the health service is very used to people coming from a whole range of different backgrounds—universities, staff members and local authorities. I do not believe it is beyond the wit of the calibre of people who chair such organisations to ensure that such appointments can take corporate responsibility for the decisions they make.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I may re-emphasise that I accept that all those people have a role, but it is the fact that the patients forums have inspectorate powers on the trusts which makes them so different and which makes this non-executive member so different.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords. can the Minister tell us whether the members of the patients forums will be paid?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. they will not be paid. They will be appointed by the national commission in the light of criteria set by the NI-IS Appointments Commission. Perhaps II may say to the noble Baroness that I would be happy to discuss that matter with her between now and Committee. Many of these details have still to be developed. Her experience will be relevant here. All I was seeking to say is that I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of the NHS or local boards to work out ways in which these very important people can play a full part in the deliberation of the board.
My noble friend Lady Gibson raised a number of questions about the staff of CHCs. We shall have a clearing house process. Those staff will have to apply for their jobs but, like health authority staff under the Shifting the Balance of Power proposal, the aim is to continue employment for them until the new arrangements are in place. I believe that there are many opportunities. There will be many more people involved in patient representation and patient advocacy in the new situation than there were in 'the old. CHC staff have enormous expertise to bring to the table. I am sure that good staff will have no difficulty in ensuring that they find a place in the new arrangements.
Time presses on and I must turn to Clause 25. A number of noble Lords have raised concerns about how we intend the regulation of professions to proceed. It is worth making the point here, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and my noble friend Lord Turnberg, that if the council which we propose is to be effective, it will need powers. We believe that the council needs to be able to make progress in the task of modernising regulation. It needs powers, therefore, to ensure that any obstacles which it encounters can be overcome. The Kennedy report came to the same conclusion. It said:
"We believe that the Council should have statutory powers to require the various bodies to act in the interest of patients and conform to principles of good regulation".

431
There is no doubt, from many of the responses we have received, that a lot of people agree with that, even some of the regulatory bodies so affected. For instance, the UKCC, the current regulatory body for nurses, midwives and health visitors, said that there is little point in establishing the new over-arching council unless it has statutory powers and real teeth. The General Optical Council said that the council should have the powers necessary to take prompt action against a regulatory body which is not discharging its role adequately.
The Government accepted the recommendation of the Kennedy report that the council should be the guardian of the public interest and one which operates independently of government. I want to assure the House that in giving the new council reserved powers, it will be expected to respect the independence of the regulatory bodies and allow them the maximum opportunity to act voluntarily.
I understand the concerns of noble Lords that this power is a means by which the Secretary of State may gain undue influence over the running of the regulatory bodies. That could not be further from the truth. The Bill was carefully drafted to ensure that the only power of the Secretary of State to direct the council is with regard to value-for-money issues. In all other respects the council will act independently of the Department of Health. The Bill makes it clear that the council will be accountable to Parliament and it will be open to be scrutinised to ensure that it functions as intended.
The council will not be subject to political control. The council will select its own chair from among its membership, except for the first chair who, in order to smooth the process of setting up the new body, will be selected by the Secretary of State. But that is no departure from the way that we have been dealing with the new regulatory council, the nursing and midwives council and the health professions council. But even that first appointment must be selected from among the members of the council, none of whom will have been appointed by the Secretary of State. The task of appointing the lay members will be carried out by the NHS Appointments Commission.
In Committee in another place we tabled an amendment to meet the regulatory body's other principal concern, which was that the power in Clause 25 should not be used lightly. If the council should ever use its powers to direct a regulatory body to make a rule when it considers that to be desirable for the protection of the public, there must now be a period of consultation between the council and the body before that happens. That will ensure, as we would expect to be the case, that the power is used as a last resort when all other means of resolving the difficulty have been exhausted. Any rule that the regulatory body was directed to make would still be subject to approval by the Privy Council.
I refer to the comments of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, which I listened to with great interest, and the report of the Select Committee on Delegated
432
Powers and Regulatory Reform. We shall look at that carefully and consider the implications. I would also say to noble Lords, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that we stand ready to have further discussions with the regulatory body to see if we can assuage concerns. Clearly, I accept that we want to have a constructive dialogue and reach a satisfactory conclusion —
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. If this council is established and it attempts to direct a regulatory authority to amend its rules in a way which that authority thinks is totally contrary to the public interest, who will he the final arbiter? Will it be the Secretary of State or will it be, still, the Privy Council and Parliament?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is an interesting question. Perhaps I should explain the process under which that will operate. There would first be a process of discussion between the council and the regulatory body. If that proved to be unsatisfactory and the council suggested that there should be a rule change, there would then be further consultation. If at the end of the day the regulatory body was unable to agree with that, there would then be a direction made by the council. The expectation would be that the regulatory body would make the rule and that that would then go forward to the Privy Council for approval.
The noble Lord asked—I think this was really the question—what if the regulatory body then refuses to make the rule? It seems to me that that would mean the regulatory body would be in breach of the law. Clearly, that would be a difficult and serious situation. As regards the action that would be taken, we are in virgin territory. Certainly, we will need to consider that as we take this through. Clearly, it would be a serious matter for the regulatory body not to make the rule as directed by the council because the council would be making such directions in accordance with the powers it will have under the Bill.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, before we leave the subject, one of the concerns of the regulatory bodies is that no examples are given. Perhaps the Minister can come back at Committee stage and give some examples. I understand that his right honourable friend wrote yesterday to the General Dental Council, which had asked about the use of the direction-making power. His noble friend said that that power would be used in situations where the council considered that it would be desirable to do so for the protection of members of the public. That is an interesting and wide phrase. If the Minister could come with specific examples of what that would mean, that would assuage some of the fears that are aroused.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are two points to make about that. First, the clause in the Bill which states that that can be done only in relation to the protection of the public is an important safeguard for the regulatory body; and, secondly, I am always

433
happy to oblige and shall do what I can. I am always wary of "what ifs" as we go through the Bill because it is certainly my hope that this provision will never need to be used. One hopes that the way that this will operate is that sensible discussions will take place between the council and the regulatory bodies and that there will be general agreement about the way forward.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the council acts disproportionately, unreasonably or irrationally, then it would be open to the regulated body to seek an order from the administrative court quashing the decision of the council? Further, will he confirm that the Government have no plans to exclude that normal process of litigation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Clearly, my Lords, we are not seeking to change public law in terms of the ability of any of these bodies to seek action in the courts. We are seeking to have a sensible arrangement where we have professional self-regulation and cooperation between the regulated bodies through the council. I very much hope that we are talking of a theoretical process which will never have to be used.
We go back to the Kennedy report which suggested that it would be important to have such a reserve power. I repeat: the Government are anxious to continue their discussions with the regulatory bodies. We shall of course consider the suggestions made by the committee that my noble friend has drawn our attention to.
Time presses on and perhaps I may just turn to the question of Wales. It is not for me to comment on the policy of the National Assembly as to the arrangements in Wales. I am glad that the meeting on Monday proved to be so successful. I think that it should be possible for the usual channels to agree a process whereby perhaps the clauses on Wales could be debated together. I suggest that we put that to the usual channels because I want to be helpful. So far as concerns the consultative process and the questions raised about the structures and strategies in Wales, I shall make sure that those comments are relayed back to the National Assembly.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, can the Minister explain why in Wales there was a three-month consultation period and only six weeks in England?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Surely, my Lords, it is the glory of devolution that each administration makes its own decisions on these matters. The Benches that the noble Lord speaks from surely should be the last to complain about that in view of their arguments on the issue.
I promised the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that I would respond in relation to the issue of local optical committees and how they can provide for wider representation. We know that we have to consider this matter. I can promise that there will be consultation with the profession about these matters.
434
I have not responded to every noble Lord, but I hope that I have covered most of the principal points in the Bill. I know that noble Lords are concerned that we create the right environment in the NHS for people at local level to make the most of what they have, to innovate and lead and to make changes on the public's point of view. I believe that this Bill gives us that. It is not a centralising Bill; it allows us to decentralise within the context of national frameworks and independent inspection. I have no doubt whatever that the NHS will rise to the challenge, take this matter forward with enthusiasm and deliver better services to the public.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. We have had a debate of almost five and-a-half hours. It has been a debate notable for its expert contributions. I am particularly delighted that we managed to tempt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, to speak on health after a gap of so many years. I trust that he will not leave it quite so long next time. His was a very thoughtful speech indeed.
The very few contributors to the debate—I calculate about three-and-a-quarter—who really welcomed the Bill did not express the mood of the House. Despite the Minister's customary reasonableness in responding to as many questions and issues as he could, and his almost hyper-optimism about the outcome of the Bill, I am afraid that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and myself, and indeed the terms of my amendment, reflect more closely the mood of the House today.
There have been so many issues. In fact the Minister raised almost more issues of concern than he put to rest. That is the problem with the Bill.I am afraid that it will continue to raise deep concerns during further stages of the Bill. There are attractive options for decentralisation, but the Bill does not contain them. That means that there are stormy waters ahead for the Bill and—to mix the metaphor—there will be some very heavy artillery put in place during February before the Committee stage on quite a number of provisions in the Bill. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues take heed of the debate tonight.
The provisions of the Bill were not in the Government's manifesto. I noticed that the Minister agreed that we should stop tinkering. I suggest that we should stop tinkering and re-tinkering. It is not too late to change the terms of the Bill and indeed to withdraw it until a later date.
We have had a good debate. I thank noble Lords for their, both explicit and implicit, support for the terms of the amendment. I do not believe that any purpose would be served by putting the amendment to a vote, particularly with the Government Chief Whip treading the boards on behalf of a cancer charity tonight. So it would be extremely churlish of me to do so. In those circumstances, and with those gypsies warnings, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Postal Services Act 2000 (Modification of Section 7) Order 2002
8.57 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December 2001 be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will be happy to hear that this is a well thought-out and sensible piece of tinkering. It is a small measure which makes a modification in the regulatory regime for the postal services market.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Postal Services Act 2000, which came into force in March 2001, introduced a new regulatory framework for the postal market. It created the new postal regulator—the Postal Services Commission, known as Postcomm— with the primary duty to ensure the provision of the universal postal service in the UK.
Section 6 of the Postal Services Act 2000 prevents any person conveying a letter from one place to another unless that person holds a licence authorising that conveyance. Such licences are granted by Postcomm. Section 7 of the Act sets out exceptions to that, and Section 8 gives the Secretary of State the power to modify Section 7 but only where Postcomm has recommended that that should happen.
Section 7(2)(d) of the Postal Services Act provides that a licence is not required for the conveyance of an overseas letter out of the United Kingdom, but Section 7 does not allow a person to make a collection of letters for that purpose.
Postcomm has made a recommendation that this restriction should be removed. Before making such a recommendation, the Postal Services Act requires Postcomm to consult with the Consumer Council for Postal Services, licence holders and such other persons as Postcomm considers appropriate. Postcomm undertook its consultation as part of the consultation process in relation to its published proposal to grant a licence under the Postal Services Act 2000 to G3 Worldwide Mail (UK) Limited. The consultation found that there was a unanimous view in the postal services industry that that sector of the market should be deregulated. It revealed clear support for Postcomm's proposal to modify the legislation, so that a licence will not be required for the collection of such letters. Postcomm says that introducing that modification would be deregulatory and would have no cost to postal operators.
The modification to the legislation contained in the order achieves the desired effect by amending Sections 7(2) and (3) of the Act. A licence will no longer be required for the collection of letters for their conveyance out of the United Kingdom. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December 2001 be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
9 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the Minister explained, the order will cure another anomaly that has been found in the Postal Services Act 2000. I thank the Minister for that clear explanation of the order.
I have often complained to your Lordships about the tendency for the Government to produce enabling Acts, delegating legislative powers to Ministers, but, in this instance, the power is serving a useful purpose. However, I also point out to your Lordships that the method used in this case is an order requiring positive ratification by Parliament, rather than the negative procedure that is often sought in primary legislation. I welcome that because it means that the order will receive the scrutiny of both Houses. It has already been before a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in the other place, at which it was debated and received approval at a sitting that was attended by 14 Members and took about 30 minutes.
As I said, we do not oppose the order. In fact, we support it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dissolution) Order 2002
9.1 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dissolution) Order 2002 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 8th January [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order will tie up the legislative loose ends that exist, now that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has taken over the responsibilities of the ministry. The order will have three main effects: it will dissolve the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: it will transfer all the property rights and liabilities of MAFF to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and it will bring DEFRA in line with other departments by transferring all the statutory powers and duties of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, acting alone or with others, to the generic title of Secretary of State. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dissolution) Order 2002 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 8th January [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whiny.)
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting the draft Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dissolution) Order 2002. It signals the death of MAFF and, like Phoenix the calf, rising from the carnage, the new department. the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will be

437
established. I appreciate that the order is to tidy up the legislative loose ends, but the order in fact transfers all the property rights and liabilities and transfers all the powers and duties of the old MAFF. In other words, it winds up the department.
Over the past three years, I have covered what is now the DEFRA brief. The Conservative Party early recognised the important link between food production, the environment, leisure and the wider rural economy and has sought to raise matters that overlap and have a consequential effect on the wider community. Those years have seen the collapse of farm incomes to an average below the national minimum wage and the loss of 60,000 jobs. The BSE outbreak caused anguish and anxiety for producers and consumers and was followed by the heartbreak of swine fever and then foot and mouth disease. To round things off, heavy rain caused extensive flooding that affected crop production. In the midst of that, MAFF appeared inadequate, out of control and led by events. On more than one occasion, the Minister acknowledged that mistakes were made and that MAFF was unable to cope with difficult circumstances.
It is not my wish tonight to repeat the many exchanges that we have had—the Minister will be pleased to hear—particularly during the past year. Having clearly stated that all was far from well, I should like to record that, within the department, many employees worked extremely hard, none more so than the vets involved in the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Seeing their life's work destroyed was, for many farmers, too much to bear, but a vet's prime role is to save life, not kill en masse. They too were put in a difficult position that some felt went against their calling. To those who worked so hard, I wish to record our grateful thanks.
I still believe that the Government were unwise not to have held a full public inquiry into the foot and mouth disease outbreak. When the order was debated in another place, the Minister, Alun Michael, said:
"Like the results of the others, the findings of the Devon inquiry will be fed into national inquiries".
We mentioned that earlier this afternoon, so I will not go through the exercise again. The Minister then said:
"It is appropriate that the Government respond to the results of those inquiries".—[Official Report, Fifth Commons Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 22/1/02; col.16.]
Before I move away from foot and mouth disease, I must ask whether the Minister can tell us how many animals have been slaughtered since the last case was officially notified at the end of September.
From the death of MAFF, I turn to the birth of DEFRA. The new department has a huge brief, and I know that it has already had its teething problems. On the appointment side, can the Minister tell us more about the responsibilities of the new director general of operations in service delivery and of the new scientific adviser? For example, should foot and mouth disease or another disease break out, what would be the position of Dr King or Mr Scudamore? Would their 2001 roles be altered? In other words, who is in charge? To whom will the State Veterinary Service report?
438
When the order went through in the other place, Alun Michael said that DEFRA led government policy on sustainable development, while putting; the principles into practice in its own aims, objectives and work, something that was made easier by its size and punching weight. "Bravo", I say to that. I hope that the European Union, the representatives to the WTO talks and, most of all, the Treasury take note.
It is not just those people who have expressed concerns to me. In the edition that has been published today of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee report on departmental responsibilities for sustainable development, disquiet was also expressed on items 3, 5 and 15 of their recommendations. Item 3 was concerned that certain circumstances are not covered by DEFR A, including transport, industry planning and urban regeneration. I can understand those concerns. Under item 5, looking at risks, it was felt that other government departments would not, as a matter of course, consult DEFRA. Under item 15, it was felt that the progress to date on the implementation of a thorough programme of environmental appraisal of policy had been disappointingly slow.
It is commonly known that a new department experiences teething problems. We understand that drawing employees from different departments requires special management skills. I think the Minister will agree that some old habits die hard. But one basic problem that should surely have been sorted out quickly was the differentials in pay between the civil servants. I understand that the new department has 8,157 members of staff, plus a further 5,952 in its agencies. I ask the Minister: is all well and have those matters been solved?
Today, 31st January, is the last day for sending out IACS payments. Have they all gone? If not, how many are outstanding and when does the Minister expect them to be cleared? While I am on late payments, have all payments been made to those who had animals confiscated and slaughtered during the foot and mouth outbreak? If not, is there anyone who has so far received nothing and how many still have something due to them?
Correspondence was another teething problem. I was not surprised that DEFRA was overwhelmed with letters during the foot and mouth outbreak. I also understand that due to IT faults many of those letters were not even logged, so the size of the problem was not appreciated at the time. Again I ask the Minister whether that backlog has been cleared. If not, what are the targets for dealing with it?
Imported foods, both legal and illegal, have been the subject of numerous Questions and debates in this House. The Minister acknowledged that there should be a cross-departmental push to increase inspection. Has he anything further to add to his general comment earlier this week?
The hour is late and we will surely have the opportunity to question and debate DEFRA in the months ahead. A pro-active and sustainable policy on food production is but one aspect for which the noble Lord is responsible. But for many of us it is the

439
linchpin on which our future lies. We cannot have a green and pleasant land if there is no profit to be made by farmers. We will have fewer visitors to our countryside should the land be left to its own devices. We will not have meaningful rural communities if village shops, especially post offices, continue to close at the alarming rate of the past two years. We will not be in a position to make work available for our younger generation in country areas should farming and rural business fail.
This Government have sought to consult—some, as the noble Lord knows, say too much. It is time for action. It is a time to stand up for UK people and a time to have the courage to tackle head on some of the difficult choices which Sir Don Curry's commission so clearly delineated.
We wish the Minister and his new department every success in what will no doubt prove to be a very busy year.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, from these Benches I shall not rehearse all of the points made by the Conservative Benches. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, the hour is late. I shall simply address my comments to the handing over of MAFF to DEFRA.
DEFRA has been a very welcome concept for us and we have long called for a department that encompassed farming and rural issues. It was unfortunate for the Government that the hand-over came at a time of numerous crises, but that did not excuse all the difficulties. The civil servants need to look at how that hand-over was done. Indeed, the Minister of State, Margaret Beckett, was asked why letters were taking so long. She gave an explanation in her letter of 14th November. She said:
"I hope this explains the situation. It does not excuse it".
I hope that lessons have been learnt from that.
I understand further that some 16,201 working hours have been lost due to strikes since the establishment of the department. When I last looked at the website to see the number of vacancies, in the London office alone there were some 200. Perhaps when the Minister replies he could say how many vacancies still exist and what is being done as a matter of urgency to fill those posts even on a temporary basis, so that day-to-day matters such as correspondence can be dealt with.
Perhaps for the future we will want to keep our eye most critically on the issues raised by the Environmental Audit Committee in its first report of this Session. It makes a number of points in relation to sustainable development and how an eye will be kept on that area of work. It expressed severe misgivings. In a year when we are looking at a world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg in September, that is an extremely pressing issue. Of the department's press releases in January, naturally a large number concerned farming. There were a few on public access and one or two on quangos. The environment as a whole scored very low.
440
The good news is exemplified by the website, which is coming on apace. It still has some gaps. Some pages have links to public bodies, some do not. The interactive horizon scanning, with its section on the deer population, is a good example of encouraging the academic world and the public to contribute and is much to be commended.
Can the Minister confirm that he intends to publish every year on the website whether or not the Department's aims and objectives are being met? Could those and other targets be gathered in one place, so that it is easy to see how DEFRA is fulfilling its aims and objectives?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for registering their support for the overall rationale behind the creation of DEFRA and thereby for the dissolution of MAFF that is enacted in the order.
There have been a number of teething problems but also some major achievements—not least bringing more people into a constructive relationship. The website, with its horizon scanning feature, is but one example. We have a better and more constructive relationship with our stakeholders than MAFF. Bringing countryside, farming issues and rural affairs together and giving them a higher profile is more holistic than before.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the number of animals that have been killed since 30th September. I cannot give her an exact figure but a few hundred animals have been killed as a result of an initial positive test among various sheep flocks. I will give the noble Baroness the figures later.
The noble Baroness also asked about changes in structure. It will be better if I send her a diagram of the department. There have been marginal, but not radical, changes in the lines of responsibility of the State Veterinary Service. If a further disease were to break out before we have received the full reports of the various commissions of inquiry and we have taken a view on their recommendations, we would be dealing with the State Veterinary Service and, broadly speaking, with the structure as it is. I suspect, however, that some of the lessons that we could put into effect immediately would mean operating in somewhat different ways. Contingency planning is under way on that basis.
Both noble Baronesses referred to the Select Committee in the other place, which attached a number of important qualifications to its support for the creation of DEFRA. There are always problems of jurisdiction around the Whitehall boundaries. For some matters, the synergy was closer before than now but, as countryside, farming and rural affairs account for 80 per cent of the land, the synergy provided by the creation of the new department is enormous. We have new protocols with the DTLR, other Departments and the devolved administrations.
Reference was made also to the problem of differential pay. That was a salutary lesson on the consequences of decentralised pay. When one alters

441
the boundaries, one has to take account of such matters. Perhaps it would have been better if I could have reported this earlier, but it looks as though the dispute is about to be resolved. The unions and management are now working in partnership to develop a new pay structure. The industrial action was suspended as from l1th January and I believe that we are near the end of that dispute.
Among the consequences of industrial action was the late payment of various subsidies through the RPA but the figures look more promising now. As of today, 93 per cent of all payments have been made and it looks as though we will get close to 100 per cent by close of play on some of the others. Nevertheless, there is a problem with a few outstanding payments. A number of compensation issues are also still outstanding, in almost all cases as the result of a dispute, with the exception of the overhang slaughtering arrangements. There are some problems on this front as well. I am afraid that the foot and mouth outbreak has left a messy aftermath, but we are rapidly clearing it up.
A further casualty of the enormous concentration on foot and mouth disease, and the creation of a new department, was correspondence. I can only repeat what was said by the Secretary of State. It is understandable that we fell behind on correspondence, but it is not excusable. While we have cleared most of the backlog, it is a fact that it is not yet cleared completely. Occasionally I still sign letters to noble Lords which are dated well hack into last year, for which I apologise. However, we are making progress and we intend to clear current correspondence in a much more effective way. However, I regret that there is still a backlog.
Turning to the broader responsibilities of the department, in particular the central theme of sustainable development, while I note the comments of the Select Committee of another place, I think that we have made great progress. In particular I refer to the international front and the leading role played by my right honourable friend Margaret Beckett in both the Bonn and Marrakesh agreements and now in the lead up to the Johannesburg summit. There are very important issues of environment, Kyoto and sustainable development on the world stage in which my department will play a very positive role, one which frankly could not have been played by either of the previous departments to quite the same effect. I think that that bodes well for the department as we move away from what, undoubtedly, has been a tragedy for agriculture, for the countryside and, indeed, a tragedy for many of the staff and management in what was MAFF.
Finally, I record my deepest appreciation for what the noble Baroness said about MAFF staff. They have been through an absolutely appalling time. It was as traumatic for them as it was for many in the farming community. Her words will be much appreciated.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Private and Voluntary Health Care (England) Regulations 2001
9.22 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order, laid before the House on 12th December, be annulled (S.I. 2001/3968).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In common with most if not all noble Lords who had the privilege of debating the Care Standards Act 2000 during its passage through your Lordships' House, I have been and remain now a firm supporter of the Government's proposals to strengthen the regulation and oversight of independent hospitals. In tabling my Motions for debate this evening, I do not seek in any way to criticise the primary purpose for which the statutory instruments listed on the Order Paper were drafted. My reason for laying these prayers is very specific. It is to voice a strong protest on behalf of a single category of establishment which these regulations will affect. I refer to clinics and beauty salons that operate a particular type of equipment designed to remove unwanted body hair.
There is a type of machine that removes body hair using a technology called intense pulsed light. Intense light is not the same thing as a laser. An IPL machine operates on a principle of administering light to the growing hair, thereby conducting heat to the hair follicle and destroying the cells responsible for the growth of new hair. The technique is painless, noninvasive and extremely safe. It is also, I understand, very effective. While the operator of an IPL system requires training, such training is simple and straightforward. Intense pulsed light hair removal systems were introduced on to the market some two or three years ago and the market for them has grown. There are currently around 1,000 locations around the country that use it, mainly leisure establishments such as hotels, spas and beauty salons.
Although hair removal using this technique is a cosmetic procedure, not a medical one, those establishments that offer it fall within the licensing and inspection regime applicable to full-blown private hospitals. A clinic offering IPL hair removal has no beds, no nurses. no doctors. Typically it is just a small room in which clients are treated with a machine little bigger than a hairdryer. The absurdity of equating such a facility with a private hospital has not, I think, been appreciated in the Department of Health. All the more absurd is it when one considers that other types of hair removal systems such as electrolysis, an invasive procedure, will not be affected by the regulations.
The way in which the IPL sector was brought within the scope of these regulations does not do much credit to the Department of Health. The first consultation paper relating to the National Care Standards Commission was published in July 1999 and was followed by a further document in December 1999 outlining the result of the consultation. At that stage

443
there was no mention of extending healthcare regulations to the intense pulsed light technique. The Care Standards Bill was silent on the issue.
After the Care Standards Bill received Royal Assent in 2000, there was a further period of consultation with the industry on the proposed standards but there was still no consultation with the main intense light manufacturers or users. Thus in two years, and after several major consultation papers, there was no public mention of the intention to regulate intense light—none, that is, until the eleventh hour when in July 2001 the draft statutory instrument was issued. All of a sudden, establishments using intense light equipment were included within the scope of the regulations. The manufacturers, therefore, had no opportunity to discuss the merits or otherwise of these regulations as they might affect them. Only after the formal consultation process had ended did officials belatedly attempt to consult the sector. Several months ago the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, intervened at ministerial level, but no Minister has to date replied to this approach.
I do not lay Prayers lightly but I have done so in this case because it appears to be the only way of bringing the Minister's attention to a situation that should never remotely have been allowed to arise. I shall not be irresponsible over the order, and there is no question of my calling a Division on it. Nevertheless, I have three concerns which I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to, and of which I have given him prior notice.
The first relates to the need for transitional arrangements to ensure that establishments using intense light machines may continue to do so after the day on which these regulations commence. The commencement order provides for phasing-in arrangements whereby applications submitted prior to 1st April for registration under the Act will be treated as being in compliance with the regulations until the commission has processed the application and made a decision. However, crucially, that concession will not apply to applications submitted after 1st April.
The reason that is important is that in April the single largest trade fair takes place in which IPL machines are sold. The four weeks after 1st April, therefore, will see registration applications reach their peak for the year. If those individuals and businesses who purchase IPL machines at the April trade fair are obliged to wait for six, nine or even 12 months while the National Care Standards Commission gets through the backlog of applications for registering all private hospitals, then I really do not think that that is reasonable or equitable. It may even amount to an unfair restraint of trade. No small business is going to buy such a machine for the first time if it will be prevented from using it for several months. Again, had the sector been consulted at the appropriate time, it could have advised the department of the damaging effect that the regulations, as drafted, are likely to have on their business.
Therefore, I should like an assurance from the Minister that he will give very sympathetic consideration to extending the transitional arrangements so as to enable those who apply to register IPL machines after 1st April to operate them normally until such time as their applications are processed by the commission.
My second concern relates to dual registration. During our debates on the Care Standards Act we established that one of the benefits of having a National Care Standards Commission would be that private hospitals would no longer have to register twice—once with the local authority and once with the health authority. Unfortunately, the belated inclusion of leisure facilities within the Care Standards Act regulations looks set to create a new system of dual registration because many facilities within beauty salons and health clubs already have to be registered with the local authority and will continue to have to be so. Nowhere is that issue addressed in the statutory instrument. I should be grateful if the Minister would give sympathetic consideration to this problem which, again, might well not have arisen had there been proper consultation.
My third main concern relates to fees. There will be three registration fees for IPL establishments: £1,100 for the owner of the establishment where the machine is used; £300 for the registration of the day-to-day manager; and £750 for annual registration of the room in which the machine is located. This adds up to a regulatory bill in the first year of £2,150. Added to these explicit costs will be the implicit costs of complying with both the paperwork and the annual inspection process. It is perhaps one thing for a full-blown private hospital to carry costs of this size. For a small beauty salon providing an intense light machine, often as a marginal service, it will be a considerable and, in my view, disproportionate burden.
But the matter does not end there. The consultation document indicated that the National Care Standards Commission intends to move, in time, towards full cost recovery. This means that within perhaps five years the fees may have doubled from the levels that I have just read out. I am not aware of any clarification by the department or the commission as to whether this kind of uprating of fees will be carried through. There was no published response to this particular aspect of the consultation. Can the Minister give an assurance that the burden of the registration fees on smaller providers will be closely monitored? Can he say whether the NCSC does indeed intend to proceed to "full cost recovery", whatever that means in the context of these very small IPL establishments?
I end by reiterating what I said at the beginning of my remarks. In the context of intense light machines, these regulations have been particularly poorly thought out. Indeed, they seem to me, knowing what I do about the cosmetic treatment concerned—not, I hasten to say, from personal experience—wholly anomalous. Although these regulations will be brought into force as drafted, it is not too late for the Government to look again at the inclusion of intense light technology under the same heading as private

445
hospitals. I hope that the Minister can give me an assurance that he will carry out such a review at an early opportunity. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order laid before the House on 12th December be annulled (SI. 2001/ 3968).—(Earl Howe.)
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on introducing this Prayer to annul. As the Minister will know, I wrote to him on 16th January in a tenor very similar to the points made by the noble Earl. Obviously this is the best way to get a ministerial assurance; I am still waiting for a reply to my letter. Meanwhile the clock ticks on on a negative instrument.
I shall not repeat the points made by the noble Earl. Suffice it to say that there are real issues here in terms of, first, the lack of consultation with the industry; secondly, the burden of regulation in terms of fees and costs; thirdly, the classification of these businesses as independent hospitals—it is a nonsense that they are so classified in view of the establishments that use these intense light machines—and, fourthly, the whole question of transitional arrangements.
One of the problems for the Minister in replying to the fourth point is that, effectively, the regulation that determines the transitional arrangements, as I understand it, falls under a different order—that is, the Care Standards Act 2000 (Commencement No. 9 ( England) and Transitional Savings and Provisions Order) 2001, the date of which has passed. If the Minister can say anything to mitigate that, the industry would be extremely grateful, despite the passing of the regulation.
Two further points were raised by my honourable friend Dr Evan Harris in the Commons debate on this subject, the Hansard for which is not available but the Minister probably has a note of these issues. First, under the regulations—Part III deals with the conduct of healthcare establishments—there appears to be no criterion in terms of inspection for inspectors to observe whether or not the EU Working Time Directive has been complied with. That is not yet in force, as I understand it, but it will be important. It will certainly be extremely important in the NHS, so it will have considerable importance in the independent healthcare sector as well.
Secondly, the Minister will have noticed some of the press coverage surrounding anaesthetists' fees. Because these are not paid for directly by independent hospitals, as I understand it, regulation 7(1)(b) will not cover anaesthetists' fees. The Minister is no doubt aware of the activities of the OFT in looking at possible cartels in terms of consultants' fees. That is very welcome, although I have mixed views about whether or not there should be a schedule of fees. Certainly that is a course adopted by some independent hospitals, but not by others.
446
I do not want to bowl the Minister too fast a ball. If he cares to write to me, I shall be happy to accept that. Those are the points I wish to make on the regulations.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for allowing us to debate these important regulations and for his general support for the process of regulations and the work of the National Care Standards Commission. We heard about the work of the commission earlier this evening from the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. We all have a great deal of confidence in the work that it undertakes.
Intense pulsed lights have the power of class 4 lasers, but are not technically lasers. Both types of machine are used to remove unwanted hair or thread veins and both have the same potential dangers if misused, including burns to the skin or eyes and scarring. They were not developed until after the Registered Homes Act 1984 was passed and the department was not originally aware of their existence. However, in 1996 medical practitioners, radiation experts and laser providers and manufacturers began to ask the department to get rid of the anomaly whereby only class 4 lasers were regulated.
Under the Registered Homes Act 1984, which operates until 31st March, health authorities have no powers to inspect or assess the quality of the treatment provided by medical practitioners of services provided. Inspections focus on the state of the premises and facilities and on staff qualifications and numbers. At present, the managers and owners of establishments are not held to account for the treatment provided in their establishments. They merely facilitate the provision of treatment by medical practitioners, to whom they grant practising privileges. It is the medical practitioner alone who contracts with the patient.
The new system brings a radical change, in that the managers and owners of the establishments will be held responsible for the quality of the treatment provided. They will also have to have in place policies and procedures for clinical audit.
In the USA, before an IPL or any new technology that is designed for application to the human body can be sold and used, the manufacturer is required to apply for it to be licensed. Thereafter, regulation is enforced through legislation by individual states rather than nationally. A common feature of US legislation is that the use of IPLs is restricted to medical practitioners. Those availing themselves of their services are referred to as patients rather than clients. It is interesting to reflect on US experience. The system proposed here would be applied nationally and therefore consistently, but we have already made one concession so that providers of IPL treatment and class 4 lasers for beauty purposes will not have to be medical practitioners, or have to work under the direction of medical practitioners, which, in the case of class 4 lasers, is currently required.
I take this opportunity to clarify that we are not seeking to regulate providers of intense pulsed light treatment on a par with private hospitals. Classifying

447
them as independent hospitals is merely a device to bring them under the Care Standards Act 2000. For the purpose of regulation, the term "independent hospital" is as defined in that Act, in the same way as countless other terms have particular interpretations in particular Acts. They will be registered as independent hospitals, but they will not be regulated as hospitals. They will not be hospitals in any other sense of the word. Providers will not be able to advertise themselves as being hospitals, they will not have to incorporate the word "hospital" into the name of the establishment and they will not have to meet the acute hospital national minimum standards. They will have their own unique set of service-specific standards.
For example, independent hospitals are currently registered as nursing homes, because of the context of the 1984 Act. We have introduced new legislation because the 1984 Act and the way in which it is applied have not kept pace with developments in healthcare and modern policies on consumer protection, safety and rights.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, paid particular attention to consultation. We received more correspondence about IPLs than any other independent healthcare issue. In November 2000 the department wished to approach the IPL industry concerning the proposal to bring it into regulation. However, some difficulty was experienced: precisely because IPLs were not regulated, there was a limited contact with the industry and, therefore, limited knowledge of who and where the manufacturers were to be found.
As one would expect, officials wrote to a number of trade associations representing those in the beauty industry, and to other organisations that might have connections with lasers or IPLs. The organisations that we approached included, the Hairdressing & Beauty Industry Authority, four other cosmetic or beauty-related organisations, as well as associations of electrolysists, dermatologists and ophthalmologists. Out of these we received only a handful of replies, saying that either they agreed with the proposal or that they would consult their members and respond to us. However, very few contacted the department with the views of their members.
When the formal consultation was carried out at the beginning of July 2001 we had a very good response; for example, from individuals including consultant physicists, health authority inspectors, laser protection advisers and laser service providers. Among the bodies that welcomed the proposals were laser and IPL manufacturers or distributors, the Hairdressing & Beauty Industry Authority and the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine. The latter had set up a working group on the private use of lasers and intense light sources where these applied to the human body. The group is an independent, professional body and comprises experts in laser technology, medical physics, photobiology, imaging and radiation.
I was asked about the position concerning IPLs after 1st April as regards the question of pre registration. I can tell the House that the existing unregistered providers who must apply for registration
448
by 31st March this year may continue to operate until finally registered. After 1st April, in common with providers in all other services under the 2000 Act, new providers cannot operate before registration. I am afraid that we cannot make an exception for one group when many others are in the same situation. However, as long as existing unregistered providers apply for registration by 31st March they may then continue to operate until finally registered.
I turn to the issue of the trade fair in April where it is claimed by one of the companies involved that the bulk of business selling or hiring out of intense pulsed light machines takes place. I understand the situation, but I have to say that we have received information that contradicts that view. We know of clinic owners who have had contact with a number of laser and light companies, including ESC Sharplan, which I understand has some connection with Aculight (one of the companies involved). They say that when they have hired machines from Sharplan, and other manufacturers, they have routinely been given a four-month or six-month moratorium on payment in which to build up a client base. That might be one way to approach this particular issue.
The noble Earl was quite right to raise the issue of dual registration. Under the London local authorities legislation of 1991 establishments for special treatment are required to be licensed by the local authority. Special treatment includes the use of any treatment using lights. In Section 4 of that legislation, premises registered as "nursing homes" under Part II of the Registered Homes Act 1984 are exempted from the requirement to be licensed by the local authority. When the Care Standards Act was passed, that part of Section 4 of the London local authorities legislation should have been amended to except premises registered under the Care Standards Act. However, due to an oversight, I regret that it was not excepted. Consequently, establishments using class 4 lasers and IPLs in London will be required to be registered with the NCSC, and licensed by their local authority. Obviously, the cost of licence fees varies through the capital, as does the methodology involved.
After consultation with manufacturers and providers, we agreed to waive the requirement for medical direction and to introduce a protocol drawn up by a medical practitioner. This means that providers will be required to register with both the NCSC and their local authority in London. I accept that that is an issue, and I can tell the noble Earl that we are considering options for amending the London local authority legislation.
As for fees, we understand that most intense pulsed light practitioners are new to registration. They will have to pay a registration fee of £.1,100 in April 2002, and then an annual fee of £750 on 1st April 2003. They will therefore have a full 12 months between paying their registration fee and the first annual fee.
We are introducing a robust regulatory system. One has to accept that there will he a thorough inspection for intense pulsed light practitioners, and that the cost

449
of regulating them will therefore be significant. We proposed an annual fee of £1,000, but after the consultation exercise we reduced that to £750 in response to concerns. As I said, we are also allowing them a full 12 months, until 1st April 2003, before they have to pay their first annual fee. These fee levels still represent a subsidisation of the true cost of regulation.
Our policy is therefore to move towards full cost recovery for all regulated services subject to review after two years. I think that, having made some of the concessions that I have mentioned, we have tried to achieve a balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the issue of junior doctors. As I understand it, no junior doctors are practising in private hospitals and consultants with practising privileges are not employed there. The issue of hours worked therefore does not arise in that context. Junior doctors are employed and work longer hours only in NHS hospitals. I should also be grateful if the noble Lord would allow me to write to him on the important issue of fees for anaesthetists which he raised.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I shall very briefly cover some of the points he made.
The Minister said that IPL machines run the risk of inflicting the same damage to the skin as lasers, but that is not my understanding. I have been advised very firmly that the risks from the use of a laser are very much greater and that the risk of an accident with an IPL machine is very slim indeed, providing that the operator is suitably trained.
The Minister mentioned the experience of the United States. I know that the industry was grateful that the department was able to make the concession that a medical practitioner need not supervise the operation of these machines. However, the fact that that concession has been made makes me wonder why the Minister drew the United States analogy at all, as officials were clearly satisfied that no medical expertise was necessary in operating the machines.
The Minister rightly said that, under the 1984 legislation, acute hospitals have been classified as nursing homes. I have personally viewed that as a quirk of history more than anything else. I am not sure whether it is a sufficiently good reason to classify IPL establishments as hospitals ab initio under these regulations, but I accept that it has been done for reasons of expediency and convenience.
I am a little surprised that, as I understood the Minister to be saying, because it did not know who to approach in the consultation exercise the department rather ran out of steam in trying to contact the companies involved. I should not have thought that the department was absolved of the need to conduct thorough and rigorous consultation when proposing to regulate, and I wonder what sort of precedent that sets for other sectors.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene, which I
450
am not sure I am allowed to do when we are discussing regulations. What I was trying to say is that for the department this was very much a new territory and a new field. Of course, the department made every effort to consult the organisations that it considered represented the trade. Inevitably, in that situation some organisations may have been missed out. I did not seek to say that the department had not taken the matter seriously.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. I understand the point the Minister has made. He suggested that someone who wished to hire or operate a machine for the first time after 1st April might find a way through one of the problems that I raised by means of a rent free period. I am not sure how much that would help someone who wanted to operate a machine for the first time after 1st April because, as I understand it, such operation would be illegal unless the application for the licence had been submitted prior to 1st April. Therefore, I am not quite sure what is—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, what I was suggesting was that in the industry it is quite normal for a newcomer in the field to be given a moratorium before he or she has to start paying for equipment. That provides one way through the difficulty of a trade fair that is held in April. Given the financial arrangements I have mentioned, newcomers can still enter into agreements and apply for the relevant licence.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I, and, no doubt, the sector too, will take careful note of that suggestion. No doubt it will be followed through. I am grateful for the fact that the Minister and the department have given thought to the matter.
I am also grateful for the Minister's reply on the issue of dual registration. It is helpful that the department is looking at the issue of amending the London local authorities legislation. I also thank the Minister for clarifying, as far as he is able. the issue of full cost recovery and the department's intentions in that regard.
I have no doubt that the industry is prepared to accept the case for regulation in this context but I still feel that the lack of consultation initially—although the department has since entered into useful discussions with the sector—has created a system that is unclear and, in my view, anomalous. I hope that, despite the fact that these regulations will be put in place, the department will not close its mind to looking at these issues afresh. With that I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes before ten o'clock.

  Defamation Procedures: Perceived Abuses
  Defamation Procedures: Perceived Abuses
  Northern Ireland Court Service and Northern Ireland Executive Committee: Concordat
  Northern Ireland Court Service and Northern Ireland Executive Committee: Concordat
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Taliban and Al'Qaeda Detainees
  Taliban and Al'Qaeda Detainees
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Abnormal Loads: Escorts
  Abnormal Loads: Escorts
  Asylum Seekers: Accommodation Centres
  Asylum Seekers: Accommodation Centres
  Asylum Seekers: Bilateral Discussions between UK and France
  Asylum Seekers: Bilateral Discussions between UK and France
  International Covenant on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination
  International Covenant on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination
  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Terrorism Act 2000
  Terrorism Act 2000
  Prison Service: Publication of Corporate and Business Plans
  Prison Service: Publication of Corporate and Business Plans
  Public Appointments: Members of the House of Lords
  Public Appointments: Members of the House of Lords
  Aircraft: Minimum Space Standards
  Aircraft: Minimum Space Standards
  Crossrail
  Crossrail
  Bull Bars
  Bull Bars
  Bed and Breakfast Unit
  Bed and Breakfast Unit
  Bus Travel in London
  Bus Travel in London
  Buttington: Repairs to Road Bridge
  Buttington: Repairs to Road Bridge
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Care Homes: National Minimum Standards
  Care Homes: National Minimum Standards
  State Pension Age: Women
  State Pension Age: Women
  Special Operations Executive: Release of Records
  Special Operations Executive: Release of Records
  Office of Communications: Ombudsman Scheme
  Office of Communications: Ombudsman Scheme
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Foot and Mouth: Slaughtered Animals
  Foot and Mouth: Slaughtered Animals
  Scottish Constituencies: Westminster Elections
  Scottish Constituencies: Westminster Elections