Sitting of 14 March 2002

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Thursday 21 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SKILLS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    Individual Learning Accounts
    Mr. John Baron: What plans she has to compensate individual learning account training providers who have suffered financial loss as a result of the closure of the scheme. [40719]
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: How many providers have been investigated by her Department in relation to abuses of the individual learning account scheme. [40721]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (John Healey): The Department has no plans to compensate learning providers in relation to the closure of the individual learning accounts programme.
    The Department's special investigations unit has completed one case and is investigating a further 105 registered learning providers. In addition, the police are investigating another 66.
    Mr. Baron: I thank the Minister for his response, but I believe that that answer is shameful. Given that it is generally recognised that because of poor controls the Government allowed this initiative to turn into a shambles, which has cost £65 million in fraud, left many students in the lurch and forced many learning providers to shed jobs—and, in some cases, go out of business altogether—why will the Government not honour their responsibilities and at least compensate those learning providers who invested in this initiative but rue the day they ever took the Government at their word?
    John Healey: Quite simply because the Government's first duty is to safeguard public funds and to look after the interests of individual learners. The business decisions
    998
    that learning providers took to take part in the programme were a matter for them. There was no contract between the Department and learning providers, and the legal advice that the Department has is very clear.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Minister has had two weeks' notice of my question yet all he produces is that vacuous answer. Is it any wonder that the Government's complete incompetence has rendered them impotent in the light of this ridiculous scandal over ILAs and the alleged fraud, with only one completed investigation?
    Will the Minister try to answer an easier question? Evidence given recently by his officials to the Select Committee on Education and Skills showed that his Department had no control over ILAs. Will he now admit that he has responsibility for the waste of an estimated £65 million of public funds? How many teachers could that have provided?
    John Healey: The hon. Gentleman may have missed my answer, but I gave him precisely the answer that his question required. One investigation into learning providers has been completed by the Department and a further 105 are under way. Some 66 investigations are being undertaken by the police, 11 further cases are being discussed with the police, and 44 arrests have been made, with 13 people charged and one convicted. That is an effective early start to mop up the problems that we had with the individual learning account scheme.
    If the hon. Gentleman reads the Select Committee evidence, particularly mine—I have given evidence before it three times in about three months—he will see that I explained clearly that the problems in the scheme began to arise and accumulate over the summer. We took action during that time to tighten the scheme's rules and operation. We were simply unable to do so within the design of the scheme and were left, regrettably, with no option but to announce on 24 October that we had to close the scheme to protect public funds and the interests of individual learners who were being abused by the minority of learning providers taking advantage of the scheme.
    Judy Mallaber: One of the most rewarding jobs that I have undertaken as a Member of Parliament has been to present education certificates to trade unionists who have been helped by their union to take up education opportunities for the first time in many years. They have often been helped by individual learning accounts. I urge my hon. Friend to introduce a successor programme to ILAs as soon as possible and also to take steps to encourage the development of union learning representatives who are often in the best position in the workplace to encourage non-traditional learners to take up education opportunities.
    John Healey: My hon. Friend may know that alongside the task of managing the closure of the ILA scheme and getting to the bottom of the problems that we had with it, we are working very hard on the design of a successor programme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have both confirmed in the House that there will be a successor scheme. In the design of that scheme we are conscious of the fact that unions, often through union learning representatives in the workplace, have made imaginative use of ILAs and, by so doing, have helped

    999
    reach target groups such as part-time workers, older male workers and shift workers whom we have been unable to reach within the lifelong learning system.
    Alistair Burt: The Minister's belated understanding of the fact that his Department has a duty to protect public funds caused a sharp intake of breath and a reference to the Trade Descriptions Act. Who does he think has been most damaged by the disaster with individual learning accounts? Is it the students, the learning providers, or the Government themselves, who, in pursuit of yet another lazily conceived manifesto target, have lost the confidence of everyone they needed to make a perfectly good idea work?
    John Healey: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. Individual learning accounts certainly encouraged new learning and brought new business to learning providers. I am conscious of the fact that both groups are affected by our regrettable, but inevitable, decision that we had to close the scheme. If, with hindsight, the hon. Gentleman is saying that it was so clear to so many people for so long that there were problems with the ILA scheme, why was it that from the general election until 24 October when we announced the closure of the scheme, only one parliamentary question on ILAs was tabled by Opposition Members? The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench did not ask a single question.

    Student Financial Support
    Mr. David Laws: What recent representations she has received regarding the review of student financial support in higher education. [40720]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): We have received correspondence from a range of individuals and organisations. We will be taking their opinions into account as we develop our policy.
    Mr. Laws: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to congratulate the Liberal Democrat-Labour Administrations in both Wales and Scotland on their decisions to bring back maintenance grants for students on lower incomes?
    Estelle Morris: The decision was properly taken by the Assembly. I note that that is the way it has chosen to deal with the issue—I will say no more and no less than that.
    Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Will my right hon. Friend consider the people who study for higher education in a further education setting, in particular those whom we are desperately trying to get into higher education and who have child care needs? Under the present funding formula, such people cannot receive any contribution towards the cost of child care whereas if they were studying in a higher education setting, they could do so. Will she also assure me that she will take no lectures from the Opposition parties? When in power, they spent all their time trying to do down students and student funding.
    Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend has a fair point. In this country, there is a long-established tradition of supporting
    1000
    students in higher education, but she is right to point out that traditionally students who go into further education have not received that level of personal support. Since 1997, the Labour Government have invested a great deal in child care support for students in further education as well as for those in higher education. Given her interest in the matter, she will recognise that. I have no doubt that in future years, as we progress our wish to ensure that 50 per cent. of the under-30s have experience of higher education, many people will come through non-traditional routes such as FE colleges. Clearly, their needs must be part of our thinking in the medium and long term.
    Mr. David Rendel: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if and when grants are reintroduced in England, at least part of the cost should fall on the general taxpayer, since all taxpayers benefit from getting more students from less well-off backgrounds into higher education, and that the rest of the costs should be borne by graduates who go into good well-paid jobs rather than by upfront tuition fees?
    Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman is making the case for a graduate tax, I think. What is clear is that funding students in higher education has to be a combination of contributions from the Government, who have the responsibility, the learner who is the biggest gainer and from the family. We are looking into how to achieve that combination. Clearly, those are the three sources of income and that will remain the case.
    Gillian Merron: May I tell my right hon. Friend that at a meeting with students at the university of Lincoln last week to discuss student finances, I was struck by the fact that their perception of the amount to be repaid on their loans was far in excess of the reality of the repayments? Will she ensure that the review looks into ways to get clear and accurate information to would-be students as well as actual students and their families, so that people are not unnecessarily put off going to university?
    Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Another point that is often misunderstood is that while people are not working, they do not have to repay the loan. Indeed, some of the changes that my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment introduced following the 1997 election have made repayment far easier than was formerly the case. One misunderstanding is that people think they are paying all the fees, if they pay a fee at all. In fact, those students who pay fees—even if they pay the maximum contribution—pay only a quarter of the total amount and the state picks up the remaining three quarters.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: I congratulate the Government on reintroducing grants last autumn in the form of opportunity bursaries. Between 400 and 500 such bursaries have been awarded to students in universities in the north-east of England. However, I have spoken to many of those in receipt of the bursaries and can tell my right hon. Friend that the basis of any future student grant scheme will have to be much broader

    1001
    and wider than the opportunity bursaries, whose tests of parental income and parental experience of education are drawn far too narrowly.
    Estelle Morris: As my hon. Friend knows, the opportunity bursaries were initially payable in the excellence in cities areas. If he casts his mind back four years, he will recall that we started the excellence in cities programme in six urban areas; it now covers a third of all the country's secondary schools. The opportunity bursaries have been widely welcomed: from a £36 million fund, a grant of £2,000 has been paid to students whose family income is less than £20,000. Such students are often the first generation to experience higher education. I have heard my hon. Friend's comments, however, and no doubt as part of our comprehensive spending review considerations we shall look at the success of the opportunity bursaries and reflect on whether they are a good form of further Government investment.

    Foreign Languages
    Mr. John Randall: What plans she has for the teaching of foreign languages. [40722]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): Our aspirations for language learning and teaching were set out in the pamphlet "Language Learning", published last month. One of those aspirations is to widen the opportunities for language learning in the primary sector. The pamphlet invited views from key stakeholders. Those views will inform our national strategy which we plan to publish in the autumn.
    Mr. Randall: I thank the Minister for that reply. Which language should be the principal language taught in our schools, and why?
    Mr. Lewis: I am not sure to which wing of the Conservative party the hon. Gentleman belongs in relation to Europe. Clearly, there would be automatic consensus on both sides of the House that the most important language that young people should learn in this country is English. The issue is then to ensure that the maximum number of pupils have the choice to study—and have access to—as many foreign languages as possible. That is why the Government's proposals to give primary school pupils, for the first time, a proper chance to have access to modern foreign languages are such an important development.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that a large number of people welcome the Government's fresh thinking on foreign language teaching? Both the Green Paper and the "Language Learning" document refer to the innovation of teaching foreign languages at primary level. Will he take on board the fact that we must get right the methodology of teaching languages? During the past 30 to 50 years, we have seen a deterioration in language education in British schools. Surely we should look at some of the best practice worldwide. The Select Committee on Education and Skills recently visited the United States. Some of the
    1002
    innovative approaches to language learning at Stanford are revolutionary; I hope that my hon. Friend will consider them.
    Mr. Lewis: That is absolutely right; there certainly should be more emphasis on spoken languages in primary schools. We have to ask ourselves some fundamental questions: for example, last year, why were about 36,000 pupils disapplied at 14 from modern foreign languages as part of the national curriculum? If we are not motivating and encouraging young people to take modern foreign languages, we are clearly getting something wrong; so it is right that we learn lessons from international experience in countries where modern foreign languages are popular with young people so that we can improve our teaching methodology in order to motivate and enthuse them about the importance of learning modern foreign languages, which are essential in a global economy.
    Mr. Graham Brady: We are all grateful to the Minister for confirming that the Government's policy on language teaching has descended into utter confusion. Why is it important, according to the recent Green Paper, that languages should be taught in primary schools and to adult learners, while it is also apparently Government policy that language in secondary schools should be optional, like the teaching of Darwinian evolution? What resources will the Government provide for the teaching of languages in primary schools? What is their strategy for providing the extra 18,000 language teachers who will be needed if there is to be one in each of our primary schools? Is not the Government's strategy on language teaching just another example of what Lord Hattersley derided on Monday as the declaratory arm of Government in action?
    Mr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that constructive contribution to the debate. The issue is straightforward: most of those who believe strongly that young people should have access to modern foreign languages have believed for many years that we need to start in the primary sector if we are to get it right. The Conservative Government did nothing to encourage that. We are ensuring that young people will continue to study a modern foreign language between the ages of 11 and 14 and will be entitled to continue with that beyond the age of 14, but we do not believe that it is right to force young people, against their will, to study foreign languages. That is constructive neither for their educational development nor for the teachers who are expected to teach them a subject in which they have no interest. [Interruption.]
    By 2012—an ambitious and optimistic target—all primary school children will be entitled to study modern foreign languages. [Interruption.] There are already 20 per cent.—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has done very well.
    Valerie Davey: I acknowledge and share the Minister's enthusiasm for introducing modern foreign languages at primary level. Will he acknowledge that many young people enter school bilingual and that

    1003
    there are many languages that we should encourage, so that those who speak them can establish their level of attainment at GCSE?
    Mr. Lewis: I entirely agree. It is sensible to build on the skills that young people have in the early years and to encourage them through primary education, so that by the time they reach 14 they are far more likely to be motivated to make a positive choice to continue studying modern foreign languages, rather than being compelled to do so.

    Performance-related Pay
    Mr. Mark Hoban: What recent meetings she has had with the NASUWT to discuss performance-related pay. [40723]
    Ian Lucas: If she will provide extra funding for performance-related pay for teachers. [40729]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards met representatives of all the teacher associations on 18 February and last met the NASUWT on 5 March. Since 1997, we have so far spent more than £700 million to fund threshold payments, and we have made available a further £250 million in special grant over the next two years to help schools pay for the performance points that they decide to award.
    Mr. Hoban: I thank the Secretary of State for that terribly complacent answer. Having dealt a further blow to morale in the teaching profession by refusing to fund performance-related pay fully, will she accept that the wreckers of the public services are not those who work in them but those who run them—Ministers and the Government?
    Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman is just a touch confused. Providing £700 million to fund threshold payments fully is not complacent. That £700 million to fund excellent teachers was not available under the Tory Government, and neither was the further £250 million to fund performance points.
    In 1998, when we launched performance pay, we said categorically that we would fund fully on demand a £2,000 pay increase for every single teacher who met the threshold. We have done that fully and promptly, with money straight from Government to teachers' pay packets, and that has made a difference. We made it absolutely clear that we would make available a further four performance points for teachers above the threshold. Indeed, in 1998 we did not commit any money to that, but since then, we have committed a further £250 million. The hon. Gentleman describes that as complacent; I hesitate to say that there are many people in the public sector, let alone in the private sector, who would think it exceptionally generous.
    Ian Lucas: I very much welcome the fact that the original threshold payments were demand-led and fully funded by the Government. Talking to head teachers in my constituency, there was an element of misunderstanding about the funding position on performance points. In a spirit
    1004
    of co-operation, which I know the Secretary of State adopts, what steps will she take to repair the damage and change the present position?
    Estelle Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Let us teachers should get performance points above the threshold for sustained good performance. Head teachers already make those sort of decisions every day of the week: they look at their resources and make decisions about how many management points they should give and whether they should use their resources to further reward a good head of maths or English. They have never before had the option of making decisions about staff who want to be good classroom teachers.
    For the first time, head teachers have a pay structure which permits them to reward staff for good classroom teaching; I applaud and welcome that. Of course, it is a tough decision, but that is what leadership in our schools is about these days. I have every confidence that our heads can exercise the same judgment, professionalism and commitment in deciding which staff should earn those performance points that they exercise in their decisions about the rest of the allocation of resources. Because it is a difficult task, we are further helping them by putting an additional £250 million into the pay system. Managing change is never easy, but I have every confidence that head teachers are up to it; this is about transforming and modernising our public services.
    Mr. Phil Willis: I wonder how the Secretary of State can keep a straight face. Nowhere in the Green Paper "Teachers Meeting the Challenge of Change" is there any question of 50 per cent. of the people who have gone through the pay threshold being barred from getting an additional reward. People are going through the threshold having met all the performance criteria, only to be told by the Government that only half of them will be funded. People are going on to the management pay spine, only to be told that one in four of them can be funded. Surely the Secretary of State should be ashamed of that level of duplicity.
    Estelle Morris: That was mock anger from the hon. Gentleman; I cannot believe that he has misunderstood the original announcements in the Green Paper so much. Let us be clear: nowhere did the Green Paper say that performance points above the threshold would be demand-led; it did not lay down a set of criteria, nor did it say that if those criteria were met, performance points above the threshold would be achieved. It clearly said that there would be a national set of criteria for threshold payments. To make sure that those criteria were implemented nationally, we established a system of assessors to ensure that public money was properly spent.
    Every utterance that I have made in the past three years on the subject has always made it clear—if the hon. Gentleman did not understand teachers' representatives did—that performance points above the threshold were different from performance points at the threshold. The threshold is demand-led against nationally agreed criteria; the external assessor is a safeguard for making sure that public money is well spent. Points above the threshold

    1005
    are entirely different; they are about criteria decided by Government bodies and head teachers. Head teachers make decisions—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to tell the Secretary of State that I want to call another Member.
    Jim Knight: In the past month, I have visited some dozen schools in my constituency, most of them primary schools. My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, in every case, their head teachers very much welcome the introduction of performance-related pay and the ability to pay up to the threshold. However, in Dorset standard spending assessment funding for education is very low: compared with neighbouring Hampshire, it is at least £100 per pupil less. Head teachers in Dorset struggle to find the extra funding for performance-related pay. What hope can she offer that they will have that extra funding, so that our fine teachers can be rewarded?
    Estelle Morris: Quite simply, the money for threshold payments and performance points above the threshold is ring-fenced and cannot be used for any other purpose. It is additional to the base budget for head teachers in my hon. Friend's area, so he should be able to return to Dorset and reassure them of that.
    Mr. Damian Green: Everything that the Secretary of State has said in the past five minutes has amply confirmed the original charge of complacency made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). When she and her Ministers discuss performance-related pay with the unions, will she reflect that she is the first Education Secretary since state education was introduced in 1870 to unite head teachers in threatening industrial action? In considering that and today's strike, which is closing schools across London, how much responsibility does she think that she bears for the anger felt by teachers towards this Government?
    Estelle Morris: Teachers in London who go on strike today are entirely responsible for their own decisions. On pay in London, the salary of a teacher who started teaching in London when we came to power is now 63 per cent. higher than it was in 1997. The previous Conservative Government could not boast such a record. Let us be clear: the Conservatives opposed the threshold payments that, for the first time, pay a 10 per cent. increase to people after seven years in the profession. Shortly, it will be paid after just five years.
    I am the first Education Secretary who can say that our pay structure rewards teachers for teaching well in the classroom. I do not describe as complacent a £700 million threshold and a further £250 million for performance points. It is a sign of this Government's absolute determination to reward teachers well, and to recognise those who teach well and who manage effectively.
    Mr. Green: It is transparently obvious that very few teachers would agree that the Secretary of State is not being complacent. No Opposition Member would support strike action that damages children's education, but, unlike the right hon. Lady, I have some sympathy for teachers. They are being driven beyond endurance by the never-ending stream of interference from her Department
    1006
    and by the Government's lack of support for issues that matter to teachers—from performance-related pay to enforcing proper discipline in schools. Does she not recognise that the underlying reason for the first NUT strike since the 1970s is that teachers are angrier than they have been since those years? If she does not change her policies and her tone, she will, like her 1970s Labour predecessors, preside over public sector strikes and terrible damage to educational standards.
    Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman's memory is selective. He moves from the strikes of the 1970s to today, thereby missing out the 1980s. In respect of educating our children, more days were probably lost in the 1980s—under a Tory Government—than at any previous time. He talks about complacency, but let me list a few things. We are rewarding advanced skills teachers who stay in the classroom, and establishing threshold payments of £2,000 and a pay structure that involves performance points. On training salaries, those who train as teachers receive £10,000. Through education legislation, I am establishing the power to pay off loans—"golden hello" training salaries—for those who train to teach in our schools. None of those measures were in place before 1997, and every single one has been opposed by the Tories.
    We offer more than words. We have shown by our actions and our investment that we value teachers. That is evidenced by this year's report of Her Majesty's chief inspectorate of the Office for Standards in Education. According to it, the quality of teaching in our schools is better than it has ever been in this nation's history. That has been achieved through excellent teachers and through a Government who, for the first time in a very long time, are committed to supporting them. We will continue to do so, but we will be tough on strike action, because it should not happen.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Simon Thomas: If she will bring forward proposals to reintroduce student grants. [40724]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): Our review of student finance is considering a number of options. We shall make an announcement on the outcome of the review when it is complete and will consult on proposals for change.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Will she accept that the decision to reintroduce student grants in Wales was triggered by an independent report that clearly showed that poorer students were not accessing higher education in Wales and that maintenance grants needed to be reintroduced? I cannot believe that the situation can be very different in England. Does not the Minister think that equity demands a maintenance system for poorer students in England and does not the Barnett formula and the decision by the National Assembly of Wales also have an implication for her Department?
    Margaret Hodge: I am surprised by that contribution because the strength of devolution is that the National Assembly can and does take decisions that differ from those taken by this Parliament. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support that. I wish that

    1007
    ensuring that more people access our higher education system was as simple as introducing student grants. The issue is much more complicated and is equally about raising the attainment of young people in schools, keeping them in school and raising their aspirations so that they see university as an option for them.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: My hon. Friend will be aware that there are many students from low-income backgrounds in my constituency, especially those studying at Anglia polytechnic university. Those students are finding it a struggle. Many work such long hours that it impacts on their studies. Could she make it clear to the House that the Liberal Democrat campaign to abolish tuition fees has no effect on poorer students because they do not pay tuition fees? However, in the review of student finance, will she look sympathetically at the introduction of maintenance grants for students from low-income backgrounds?
    Margaret Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to the fact that half of our students pay no fees and only a third pay the full fee. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the full fee barely covers a quarter of the actual tuition cost and the rest is met by Government. The purpose of the review of student finding is to ensure that debt, or the fear of debt, does not prevent people—especially those from low-income backgrounds—from going to university. We will have that at the centre of our concerns.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Has the Minister studied the survey undertaken by UNITE, a company that provides accommodation for students? The poll was carried out by MORI and involved some 1,600 students. It drew attention to growing student debt and the increase in part-time working by students, especially those from low-income families. What is the Government's reaction and what response will they make?
    Margaret Hodge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that survey, because it also said—I hope that he does not mind me quoting some figures at him—that more than 90 per cent. of those involved believed that their university education was worth while, 86 per cent. enjoyed university, 88 per cent. were happy with their lives and 86 per cent. were optimistic about their future. So the survey gave a balanced view. It is true that more students—about half—now work part time and we need to get the balance right between supporting themselves through part-time work and continuing their studies. It is also true that average debt on leaving university is going up, although not as much some predicted. One of the reasons for that is the greater generosity of the loan scheme compared with the scheme that was in place under the hon. Gentleman's Government.
    James Purnell: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the key criterion being considered in the review of student finance is the 50 per cent. target? Does she agree that in working out how we can reach that target the most important factor is raising the number of people staying on after 16 and that, therefore, in considering the priorities for funding we also have to think
    1008
    about education maintenance allowances? Those are already making a big difference in my constituency and need to be extended further around the country.
    Margaret Hodge: I completely concur with my hon. Friend's important points. The rate of young people staying on in full-time education and training after the age of 16 is very poor. If we cannot increase that rate—on which our 14 to 19 agenda is focused—we will not build the skills that are needed to be successful in the economy. One of the most effective levers that we have so far identified for supporting an increase in participation after 16 has been the introduction of the education and maintenance allowance. Over 5 per cent. more students have stayed on at 16, and even more have remained in education at 17 and gained achievements. We will build on that and bear it in mind as we determine how to move forward on student funding.

    Grammar Schools
    Hugh Robertson: If she will make a statement on the future of grammar schools. [40725]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): Our position remains unchanged. There will be no new grammar schools, but changes to the future admission arrangements of existing ones are for parents to decide through the ballot process.
    Hugh Robertson: I thank the Minister for that answer. However, he will be aware of the confusion and distress caused to many parents in my constituency by the adjudicator's recent decision on admissions policy in Kent. One of the things that is often said at my surgeries is that that is regarded as a covert attack on the grammar school system. Will the Minister therefore confirm to my constituents, who simply want the best possible education for their children, that the Government have absolutely no plans to abolish grammar schools.
    Mr. Timms: I can confirm that, as we have done on a number of occasions. The situation in Kent is complex, and there are competing interests between those parents who want a comprehensive school place as their first choice and those who want a good comprehensive as a fallback if their children are unsuccessful in grammar school selection. There have been three adjudicated decisions recently in Kent, which have addressed different issues. Our priority is raising standards across the entire secondary system, and it is clear that we are succeeding.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that raising standards across the whole secondary sector would be easier if that sector were properly consistent? The presence of grammar schools distorts pupil admissions to schools in some areas. It creates a problem in Greater Manchester in particular, where some boroughs have had comprehensive education for a generation but admissions procedures are totally distorted by the drag effect of authorities where grammar schools exist. That is not in the interests of getting 50 per cent. of pupils into higher education, especially among poorer people.
    Mr. Timms: As my hon. Friend knows, we do not favour selection at 11. Research shows that the most able pupils perform just as well at comprehensive schools as at grammar schools, if not better. However, where grammar schools exist, local parents should be able to determine whether they should continue. That is the right way in which to make that decision. We also take the view that existing grammar schools can contribute to raising standards in other local schools, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, it is right that those decisions should be made locally through the ballot process that we have established.
    Mr. David Lidington: Is the Minister aware of the financial problems that are being caused to grammar schools in Buckinghamshire and to a fair number of comprehensive schools elsewhere by the Learning and Skills Council's decision to withhold an element of the sixth form capitation payment on the mistaken assumption that 10 per cent. or more of those sixth form students will drop out before completing their courses? Will he agree to review that policy?
    Mr. Timms: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the funding for sixth forms has been transferred to the Learning and Skills Council. I am aware that there have been some local difficulties. We have provided additional grant to seek to address those problems, but these are matters for the Learning and Skills Council to conclude. All the evidence that I have seen is that those arrangements are being reached satisfactorily up and down the country.

    Teaching Assistants
    Mr. Andrew Love: How many teaching assistants are employed in schools in England. [40726]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): There were 95,815 full-time equivalent teaching assistants in maintained schools in England in January 2001. That was an increase of more than 50 per cent. on the 1997 figure. The figure for January 2002 will be available in a few weeks.
    Mr. Love: The number of classroom assistants in my local authority has increased from 440 to 650 in the past three years. As a result, educational standards have improved in six of my local primary schools by more than the national average. However, we must—and can—do more to assist. What is my hon. Friend the Minister doing to improve the training and qualifications of classroom assistants to help them support teachers better in the classroom?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the very important contribution made by teaching assistants to raising standards in schools up and down the country. The Government made a firm manifesto commitment to increase the support for teachers in schools with at least another 20,000 additional support staff of all types—teaching assistants and others—in this five-year term.
    We have set aside £400 million over the next two years to recruit and train additional teaching assistants. Research confirms the value and importance of well
    1010
    trained and managed teaching assistants. They have a key role in our vision of a remodelled school work force in which teachers have the support that they need to be able to concentrate on teaching. We are investing in developing the necessary skills and non-vocational qualifications so that there is a better career structure for teaching assistants. That is a very important consideration in our discussions with trade unions and others about remodelling the school work force.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Does the Minister accept that classroom assistants at best can be a supplement to teachers, but never a substitute for them? Why, therefore, has the pupil teacher ratio in state secondary schools, which improved in the Conservative years, deteriorated every year under this Government—in Hertfordshire, and in most counties?
    Mr. Timms: The right hon. Gentleman knows well that the Government are committed to achieving a substantial reduction in class size for infant schools. That reduction has been delivered. We have 11,000 more teachers today than in 1997, the end of the period of Conservative Government. Recruitment to teacher training is up by more than 20 per cent. this year compared with last year. We will have twice as many people this year as last in the graduate teacher programme, which allows people in mid-career to come into teaching. That shows that we are also making very good progress with teacher recruitment.
    The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) is right that teaching assistants are only a supplement. It is vital that we recruit more teachers and bring more people into the profession. We have put in place the measures to achieve that, and we are being successful.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that some of those teaching assistants work at North Derbyshire college in my constituency? That old mining college had to readjust totally after the pit closures, and there have been some reports that it has run into difficulties. I emphasise that I, the Labour-controlled Derbyshire local authority and other councils in the area are determined to ensure that the college, the largest employer in the district, remains. It was the Tory proposition to close things: it must be Labour's to repair things, mend things, make them successful and keep people in work.
    I hope that the Minister has got the message.
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend has made his views very clear. We are waiting for the inspection report on that college, and we shall give its findings careful consideration.

    Individual Learning Accounts
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What progress she is making towards replacing ILAs and expanding the availability of these vehicles by the end of 2002. [40727]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (John Healey): There will be a successor ILA-style scheme, which will build on the lessons, good and bad, that we have learned from the ILA

    1011
    programme. It will take into account the findings of the current wide consultation exercise which are due in early April. I regret that I cannot, therefore, confirm when we will launch the successor scheme.
    Mr. Swayne: My postbag is full of letters from a great number of people of very modest means who have made significant sacrifices, both of a financial nature and in the way in which they organise their lives, and who are now up the creek without a paddle. Is it true that the Learning and Skills Council warned Ministers of the possibilities for fraud in the ILA scheme and that those warnings were ignored? Will that lesson be taken on board for the new scheme, and how on earth will the Minister regain the confidence of those people who have suffered so badly in the shambles that this business has become?
    John Healey: The first question on the Order Paper was about the successor scheme. The Learning and Skills Council came into operation on 1 April 2001, and we launched the ILA scheme in September and October 2000, so the answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no, and many other interests were consulted in the run-up to the design of the scheme. I am conscious of the fact that our decision to close the ILA scheme, which was regrettable and inevitable, has left many learners unable to take up the opportunities that existed under that scheme. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that 85 per cent. of those who used their ILA said that it opened up new options for them in training and learning, and 91 per cent. said that the learning met or exceeded their expectations.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Sex Abuse Cases
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: What steps she is taking to ensure that there is consistency of approach between each Crown Prosecution Service area in respect of the (a) scrutiny and (b) credibility checks undertaken by the staff of the CPS in relation to sex abuse cases. [40755]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): All case files received by the CPS are individually reviewed in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors. The code is there to ensure fairness and consistency in case work decision making. It applies to cases involving sex abuse as it does to any other sort of case. Crown prosecutors are trained in how to apply the code, they are supervised in their work and they are inspected by Her Majesty's CPS inspectorate.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: The Minister will be aware of my significant interest in the activities of the CPS which arises from my role as chairman of the committee for abuse investigations. Although I appreciate her comments about the consistency of procedures, my concern is whether there is any evidence that the procedures have not only efficient results but just and efficacious outcomes.
    The Solicitor-General: As my hon. Friend says, I am well aware of her long-standing interest in the prosecution
    1012
    of sex offences involving children in care homes. I am aware also that in response to her work in the field, the Home Affairs Committee is to set up an investigation into these issues. Certainly the CPS wants fair outcomes as well as efficient investigations. I urge her to take up the invitation of John Holt, the chief Crown prosecutor in her area, Merseyside, to talk to some of the front-line prosecutors involved in investigating and prosecuting these very difficult cases. She will be reassured by the level-headed approach that they take to these difficult, sensitive issues.

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: How many prosecutions the Serious Fraud Office has instituted over the past 12 months; and how many have been successful. [40757]
    The Solicitor-General: The job of the Serious Fraud Office is to investigate as well as to prosecute cases of serious and complex fraud. In the past 12 months prosecutions against 22 defendants were concluded by the SFO; 18 were convicted and four acquitted. The 80 cases that the SFO is currently investigating involve fraud of over £2.5 billion.
    Mr. Cunningham: What is the level of fraud in the City and what is my right hon and learned Friend doing about it?
    The Solicitor-General: It is estimated that in the economy as a whole there is about £14 billion of fraud. My hon. Friend is right to bring that to the attention of the House because fraud is a problem not only for the individual who is defrauded but for the economy and our financial services institutions. I work closely with other Departments, as does the SFO with Customs and the Inland Revenue. It is right that we go after white collar crime so that we do not have a situation where the richer people are, the more likely they are to get away with it. In that respect, the SFO is a bit like David facing Goliath, but it does a very good job in making sure that people cannot get away with crime just because they have billions of pounds of the proceeds of crime with which to defend themselves.
    Mr. John Burnett: I am sure that the Solicitor-General will agree that it is crucial for Government Departments to work together to combat fraud, and that co-ordination of Government effort and expertise is essential to bring forward successful prosecutions.
    Customs and Excise prosecutors have come recently, or are about to come, under the aegis of the right hon. and learned Lady's Department. What plans are there for Inland Revenue prosecutors?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Customs and Excise prosecutors are shortly to be accountable to the Attorney-General. There are several principles at work. It is important to ensure the independence of the prosecutors. It is important also to ensure proper accountability to the House for all prosecutors throughout government. Further, it is important that they all work together.

    1013
    There were particular circumstances where it was felt that the independence of Customs and Excise prosecutors would be reinforced if they were to become directly accountable to the Attorney-General. As the hon. Gentleman says, that is about to happen. However, I am not aware that it is suggested that that should be the case for Inland Revenue prosecutors. We work closely with Inland Revenue prosecutors, and I visited the team a few weeks ago.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: I welcome everything that my right hon. and learned Friend has been saying.
    The director of the Serious Fraud Office has already acknowledged that the office is scraping only the surface of fraud in the United Kingdom. Given that the SFO has had many recent successes, would it not make sense for the office to have responsibility for all fraud prosecutions?
    Will my right hon. and learned. Friend confirm that Mr. Ernest Saunders, formerly of Guinness, is helping the national health service with a special research project into miraculous cures for pre-senile dementia?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the valuable work that is done by the SFO. Given its size, it can undertake only a certain number of investigations and prosecutions. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is on the Government Front Bench to hear about the importance of the SFO's work and the need to expand it. I am sure that he will take these matters seriously.
    It has been suggested in the past that the SFO should take on minor frauds. It is right, however, that it should take on complex and serious frauds. Such cases involve specialist legal and accountancy work that ranges across different jurisdictions. When I was in the SFO yesterday, it was explained to me that sometimes there are different defendants in different countries, with witnesses in different countries. The office has to deal with the proceeds of crime in different countries, and it has to translate its documents into different languages.
    We will not allow big, international fraudsters to get away with their activities by crossing jurisdictions. It is important that the SFO's work is recognised and that it has the resources that it needs to do its job.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Helen Southworth: What assessment she has made of the recommendation of Lord Justice Auld that the charges against defendants should be decided by the Crown Prosecution Service rather than the police. [40758]
    The Solicitor-General: Sir Robin Auld's review of the criminal courts, published in October 2001, proposed that the Crown Prosecution Service, rather than the police, should have responsibility for determining the charge
    1014
    against defendants except in minor or routine cases. This is to ensure that the right suspect is brought to court with the right charge and the right evidence.
    Helen Southworth: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. In her opinion, is it more likely that allegations of domestic violence will proceed to court in cases where the Crown Prosecution Service was involved in the charging?
    The Solicitor-General: It is sometimes thought that the police think, "Perhaps we should not put this case forward to the prosecution because it might drop the case. Therefore, there is no point." It might be that it is not clear about which are the best charges or what the best evidence is.
    There are five pilot schemes, and we are examining how the prosecution can take forward charges rather than the police. The schemes will show whether by working together at a local level we can have the right charges and a better outcome. In difficult cases, such as domestic violence or where there is an element of racial aggravation, it is important to get the charges right at the outset. There is nothing more demoralising for victims than to see downgraded the charge as laid, or for it to be dropped altogether. The work that has been done in Halifax, for example, shows that the process has been taken forward successfully.
    Mr. William Cash: The Prime Minister said yesterday that crime rates had fallen under the current Government since 1997, but that is simply not the case in my constituency and many others. Much of that failure relates to the manner in which criminal charges are brought against defendants. Does not the Solicitor-General agree that the indictment by the recent inspectorate report on the CPS established the existence of understaffing and weak management—yet another failure on public services by this Government—and, furthermore, that the CPS fails to respond to defence correspondence and to disclose evidence? Did she note in last week's edition of The Sunday Times the remarks of the defence lawyer who said with regard to CPS failures:
    "As a defence lawyer, I think it is great. As a taxpayer, it is disgraceful"?
    In other words, criminals are walking free and the Prime Minister was wrong.
    The Solicitor-General: That particular issue concerns a defence lawyer who was trying to drum up business for himself and, more importantly, to plug the book that he had recently published. None the less, the hon. Gentleman made some serious points about the historic understaffing of the CPS, which has had insufficient lawyers and administration staff, and the fact that improvements have been needed. The inspectorate reports show that those improvements are under way. I refer him to the evidence that the Director of Public Prosecutions gave to the Select Committee on Home Affairs last month. which could allow us to have cautious optimism that we will get the independent, fair and effective prosecution system that he and I both want.

Banking Services (Small Businesses)
12.31 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): With permission, Mr. Speaker, in presenting the Competition Commission's report on the supply of banking services to small and medium-sized enterprises, and my response and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, our starting point and guiding objective is our belief in competition as the spur to efficiency, innovation and competitiveness.
This is underpinned by our statement last July that, just as in the last Parliament it was right to make monetary decisions independent of political influence under an independent authority—first de facto and then de jure—so too it is right to make competition decisions—de facto and then de jure—independent of political interference, with Government accepting the decisions of independent competition authorities. Having already moved de facto to such a regime in the way in which we handle merger cases, in the forthcoming enterprise Bill we will legislate to make decisions on mergers and complex monopolies independent.
There are more than 3.5 million small businesses in the United Kingdom, representing 55 per cent. of jobs, 50 per cent. of all business turnover and £1 trillion of economic activity each year. The access to finance and quality of service that they receive from banks are critically important to their productivity and prosperity and that of the British economy. So when the Cruickshank report on banking services found little prospect of effective competition emerging in the small business market, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I referred small business banking to the Competition Commission for a full investigation. Its report is published and laid before the House today.
Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, there are three necessary tests, all of which must be met before it can be concluded that a complex monopoly is operating that is harmful to the public interest. The first test is that at least a quarter of the services under consideration must be supplied by a group of persons. The Competition Commission found that the eight largest clearing banks supplied at least a quarter of banking services in the UK, with the four largest providing 86 per cent. of services, and that that degree of concentration had changed little over the past 10 years. The second test is that the group of persons must be found to conduct its affairs
"as in any way to prevent, restrict or distort competition".
The third test is that the restriction or distortion of competition caused by the complex monopoly must be shown to operate against the public interest.
Let me set out the Competition Commission's findings. First, it finds that the banks concerned had failed to compete on price by refusing to pay interest on current accounts and only paying low rates of interest on smaller, short-term deposit accounts; and that they had been maintaining a structure of charges not related to costs.
Secondly, the Competition Commission finds that those banks had reduced choice, and the ability of small businesses to make savings on bank charges, by restricting small businesses to business rather than personal bank accounts; failing to inform small businesses about possible benefits from set-off and sweep facilities which
1016
allow for credit balances in one account to be set off against debit balances in another; and requiring small businesses wanting a deposit account or a loan also to hold a current account.
Thirdly, the Competition Commission finds that those banks had made it hard for small businesses to compare the deals available from different banks by failing to provide small businesses with a breakdown of interest charges on their current account and offering discounts only to selected customers.
Fourthly, the Competition Commission finds that those banks had made it more difficult and expensive for new entrants and alternative suppliers to attract small businesses by confining free banking to business start-ups and to small businesses that had moved from another bank, and negotiating reduced charges for small businesses that were likely to switch banks.
The Competition Commission concludes that all eight of the largest clearing banks in the UK were found to be carrying out one or more of those practices, which operated against the public interest. Moreover, it finds that

"the average return on equity between 1998 and 2000 is 36 per cent. Compared with an estimated cost of equity of about 15 per cent. We however, recognise that a number of adjustments should be made to these figures."
It continues:
"despite the cautious approach we have adopted to a number of those factors, we have concluded that the four largest clearing groups … are together charging excessive prices … and therefore making excessive profits in England and Wales of about £725 million a year over the last three years with adverse effects on SMEs."
Profits are absolutely central to the effective and efficient working of a market economy. They are the engine in the dynamic process of competition, innovation and meeting the needs of consumers. Where high profits are due to relative efficiency rather than monopoly—as the Competition Commission found in the case of Northern bank—the question of whether high profits are against the public interest does not arise.
Where high profits are derived from an absence of competition or through a complex monopoly situation, and are earned by overcharging customers, the effectiveness of the market is reduced. Indeed, as the Competition Commission observed, where the consumers concerned—in this case small and medium-sized companies—are themselves operating in a highly competitive market, the adverse effects on the public interest are exacerbated.
Because practices carried out by the eight main clearing banks—and the overcharging by the four largest in England and Wales—were found by the Competition Commission to operate against the public interest, it recommends that all eight clearing banks identified make a number of changes to their practices to help promote competition in this market, including being required to facilitate the switching of accounts; providing—if requested—a portable credit history; making the charges for their services more transparent; investigating the feasibility, costs and benefits of a national scheme for sharing branches; and extending the business banking code.
Taken together, the Competition Commission states that those remedies, along with others that it proposes, would help to promote greater competition in banking services.

1017
The Competition Commission also wants
"a decisive and significant shift towards what"
the commission
"consider to be competitive levels",
and it states:
"competition and entry has to date not been effective in reducing excess profits and prices, nor is the immediate prospect of new entry in"
the commission's
"view sufficient to reduce excess profits and prices in a reasonable time period."
It recommends a further transitional remedy requiring the four largest banks operating current accounts in England and Wales, where evidence of excessive charges was found, to offer all small businesses one of three possible options: a current account that pays interest of at least the Bank of England base rate minus 2.5 per cent; or a current account free of money transmission charges; or a choice between the two.
The Competition Commission concludes that since certain current banking practices have operated against the public interest, and led to small businesses paying more than they should for services, it would be wrong to let the situation continue for several more years until the behavioural remedies to promote competition took effect.
From our starting point—our belief in competition as the spur to efficiency—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I considered the Competition Commission's report carefully. We examined the recommendations and remedies proposed to promote competition, to encourage new banking suppliers to enter the market and directly to address the lack of choice and information. Until the competition authorities are fully independent, the Government have legal responsibility for decisions on complex monopoly cases. In preparing the Government's response. We sought and received additional advice on the report's technical analysis and recommendations from independent experts.
The advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, which is published today, agrees with the Competition Commission that the limited extent and difficulty of switching bank accounts is a key factor in inhibiting competition in the small business banking market. In his advice, which I am also publishing today, Sir Bryan Carsberg, the former chairman of the International Accounting Standards Board and former Director General of Fair Trading, concluded that
"the framework adopted by the Commission is sound and would be accepted as appropriate by most independent experts".
Like the Competition Commission, we recognise that for banks to be robust and play their key role in the economy, it is necessary and desirable, at certain points in the economic cycle, for them to make higher than average profits. However, although we are pro-profit, we are also pro-competition, and we cannot be on the side of any monopoly or other behaviour that unfairly restricts competition in markets.
The Competition Commission explicitly concludes that practices by banks operate against the public interest. Having carefully considered its report, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I agree that action must be taken to promote greater competition.
First, the Competition Commission recommends that banks be required to facilitate the switching of accounts to enable small businesses to move accounts from one
1018
bank to another easily and quickly by completing a substantial percentage of all account switching within five working days, by publishing their performance objectives and efficiency in achieving them, and by imposing no charges for closing accounts. We agree with the commission's recommendation.
Secondly, the commission recommends that banks be required, if requested by a small business, to provide a portable credit history—a statement of the business's credit performance that can be passed to other banks arid which will improve the prospects for smaller competitors and new entrants into the banking sector. We agree with the commission's recommendation.
Thirdly, the commission recommends that banks be required to stop bundling services and imposing requirements on small businesses to hold a current account in order to obtain a loan or deposit account. We agree with the commission's recommendation.
Fourthly, the commission recommends that banks be required to make their service charges more transparent by routinely publishing their standard tariff prices for money transmission services and for interest paid on current and short-term deposit accounts, allowing small businesses easily to compare charges. We agree with the commission's recommendation.
Fifthly, because lack of access to a bank branch represents a key barrier to many substantial new competitors entering the market, the commission recommends that banks be required to investigate the feasibility, costs and benefits of a national scheme for sharing branches, and to publish their findings within a year. We agree with the commission's recommendation.
The Julius report concluded that the principles underlying the voluntary code for banking and mortgages for households should be extended to small businesses. Consequently, the Competition Commission made several other informal suggestions, some of which are incorporated in the new code announced by the British Bankers Association last week, which we welcome. The Competition Commission recommends that other suggestions, such as banks improving their procedures for dealing with errors and paying compensation, should be added to the code.
Those and other remedies proposed by the Competition Commission are in pursuit of competition and we ask the banks to work with the Director General of Fair Trading to implement the recommendations speedily.
In seeking an earlier and decisive switch towards a better service for small businesses, the Competition Commission considered more radical proposals—for example, divestment of bank branches and small and medium-sized enterprise banking businesses, whereby banks would be forced to give over some of their branches or customers to other banks. It also considered a licence fee, an obligatory fund and a windfall tax. The Competition Commission rejected those proposals, and we agree with that rejection.
The Competition Commission recommends a transitional remedy that would not prevent companies from earning high profits but would simply ensure that they could do so only as a result of a genuine competitive advantage—a remedy that
"imposes no restriction on new entrants … and should not interfere with the natural emergence of desirable competition".

1019
Thus the commission recommends, and we agree, as a transitional measure, that the four largest banks operating current accounts in England and Wales be required to offer any small and medium-sized enterprise either a current account paying interest of at least the Bank of England base rate minus 2.5 per cent, or a current account free of money transmission charges, or a choice between the two. The Director General of Fair Trading recommends, and we agree, that we ask him to obtain undertakings from the banks to implement that remedy.
The commission suggests that all remedies be put in place within six months. We hope that the Director General of Fair Trading will be able to reach an earlier agreement on the transitional remedy. The commission also recommends that the Director General of Fair Trading review all the remedies three years after their implementation. Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, there is flexibility for a review to take place sooner. We state our view that if at any time within the three years the Office of Fair Trading observes more effective competition emerging, or banks have proposals that they believe would make for a more competitive environment, an early review could and should take place.
Our goal is to create an environment where new entrants can compete with existing banks on a fair basis and both can secure more competitive services for small businesses. I urge the banks to work with the Director General of Fair Trading to achieve what is in everybody's interest: a better service and a fairer deal for Britain's 3.5 million small businesses.
Mr. Michael Howard: I thank the Chancellor for affording me some advance notice of the statement and the large report that he has published today. However, may I also register my protest at the fact that this statement did not appear on the annunciator until seven minutes past 12, giving hon. Members only 23 minutes' notice that the Chancellor intended to make a statement today, whereas this morning's newspapers and news broadcasts were full of speculation that he may well make such a statement. The other statement that is to be made today was announced on the annunciator at 11 o'clock this morning.
There was absolutely no reason why this statement should not have appeared on the annunciator at the same time. It is typical of the contempt that the Chancellor shows for the House every time he comes before it. I hope he will not suggest that there is any question of market sensitivity, because, as I said the newspapers and news broadcasts this morning were full of speculation that such a statement might be made and, anyway, I would expect the Chancellor to know by now that the markets can do in 23 minutes what they can do in an hour and a half.
Can the Chancellor confirm that the Government received the report of the Competition Commission five months ago? Can he explain to the House the reasons for the delay in publishing it? Was that delay entirely due to the widely reported in-fighting between the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, or were there other factors and, if so, what were they? Would it not have been very much better had the Government published the commission's report when they received it, so that there could have been consultation on its recommendations before the Government made their decision?
1020
On the substance of the statement, of course I entirely agree with the Chancellor that the best protection that can be given to the consumer, including the consumer of banking services, is competition. Is it not the case that since the commission began its inquiry, there has been a welcome and not insignificant enhancement of competition in this sector, with the entry of HBOS, Abbey National and the National Australia group into this sector of the market? Can he clarify whether the recommendations made by the commission, which he has accepted, will apply to all the banks in this sector, including new entrants, or only to the biggest four banks, which, as he said, cover 86 per cent. of the market?
More widely, would not the greatest contribution that the Chancellor could make to enhance competition in the provision of banking services be to work for the relaxation of the provisions of the UCITS directive, which inhibit the development of money market funds in this country, along the lines of the measures that have been so successful in the United States?
I accept, nevertheless, that when competition is not working effectively, it is right that action should be taken to improve it. I, too, would accept most of the recommendations of the Competition Commission. There are some that require further consideration than can be given in half an hour, and we shall give them that consideration. For the most part, however—although not in every respect—it would appear that the Competition Commission has arrived at some sensible proposals, and the Chancellor is right to accept them.
Will the Chancellor tell us a little more about some of the recommendations? For example, he says that he accepts the commission's recommendation that banks be required to investigate
"the feasibility, costs and benefits of a national scheme for sharing branches"
and to publish their findings within a year. What action does he have in mind for banks that are either unable or unwilling to conduct such a feasibility study?
Does not the Chancellor recognise, as he stands here today posing as the champion of small business, that he and his Government have done enormous damage to the small business sector in this country by the piles of regulation that they have imposed on small business—4,642 last year alone: one for every 25 minutes of every working day in the year? Is that not the main factor that is impairing the ability of small business to prosper? Is not the Chancellor failing completely to take any action to remedy it?
Mr. Brown: If the shadow Chancellor supports us on the competition measures that we are putting forward today, he should have been able to tell us that he supported the switching of accounts, the portable credit histories, the changes in the British banking code and the transitional remedies. He noticeably refused to do so. If he is not prepared to support those measures, he will find himself at odds not only with the small business organisations of this country—including the Federation of Small Businesses—but with the Competition Commission.
It was the Conservative party that said, in 2001:
"Competitions decisions are best left to independent regulators and the competition authorities."

1021
The Competition Commission recommends all these measures. The shadow Chancellor should, therefore, be saying that he will back up the competition authorities, but he has not been prepared to do that. We have suggested a number of remedies, particularly the transitional remedies, on which he has been absolutely silent.
On the question of the publication of the competition report, it was received in October. We then put it to the Director General of Fair Trading for advice, and also asked Sir Bryan Carsberg to work on it. We have considered all the recommendations in detail. There have never been so many recommendations in one report on banking as there are in this report, and we have considered them all carefully. I think that the House would prefer that we proceeded in that way on this matter.
Equally, as for a statement to the House on this matter, the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself was the Minister responsible for the City and financial services in the 1980s. No monopolies and mergers statement was brought before the House. We are bringing a statement before the House in a way that has never been done before. I also have to tell the shadow Chancellor, who is a barrister, that we have had to satisfy all the legal technicalities involved in the publication of the report, which also goes to the Stock Exchange—[Interruption.]—none of it has appeared in the press—and which also has to go to the banks themselves.
There now follows a period during which the banks will be approached by the Director General of Fair Trading on the basis of the undertakings relating both to the transitional and to the other remedies. He will then report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and to me.
The shadow Chancellor asked about the changes that had taken place, with a number of companies announcing that they wanted to enter the market for small business. That, as he will discover, is dealt with in both the Competition Commission's report and in what we have received from the Director General of Fair Trading. The report says
"We do not believe that"
behavioural remedies
"will have sufficient impact on competition within the next two to three years to ensure that the incidence of excessive prices for banking services … of the four largest clearing groups in England and Wales … would disappear in a reasonable period of time."
That is exactly why the Competition Commission has proposed the transitional remedies on which the shadow Chancellor—because he has not faced up to these questions—is silent this morning.
The report says that
"lack of competition has permitted and would continue to permit overcharging of SMEs for these services."
The Competition Commission does not believe that, even given additional new entrants into the market, behavioural remedies—entry and more competition—will of themselves have sufficient effect on services to small businesses over the next two or three years. That is why the Director General of Fair Trading has recommended the transitional remedies.
I hope that, just as after a time consensus was reached on the independence of the Bank of England and acceptance of its interest rate decisions, consensus can now be reached on the independent competition
1022
authorities. I hope that after some reflection the Conservative party will agree not only that competition is right in general, but that the specific remedies that have been recommended are necessary if we are to do our best by the 3.5 million small businesses in this country.
Mr. John McFall: The Select Committee on the Treasury will welcome the report. In the next month or so, we shall be inviting the banks to gibe evidence on what they have done since the Cruickshank report.
Is it not the case, however, that too many small businesses are still being charged as much as 250 to 300 times more than is justifiable? Is it not the case that not enough small-scale risk capital is available, and very little venture capital? Those problems must be tackled if we are to achieve our twin aims of more jobs and more productivity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the banks will have to go on playing their part and come to terms with their wider role, responsibility and duties to the communities from which they derive their funds?
Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and welcome the work that his Select Committee is doing on banking.
The banks—I pay tribute to them—are working with us on the creation of venture capital funds in the regions and the high-unemployment communities. Britain is now more advanced than other countries in terms of its development of its venture capital industry in the regions, and I hope that the banks will continue to work with us to solve the problem of the venture capital funding gap in some high-unemployment areas.
Let me refer to some of the general measures. As I have said, there are 3.5 million small businesses in the country. It is estimated that they were overcharged by some £725 million in 1998–2000, although that depends on the interest rate that was prevalent at the time. Both the transitional and the long-term remedies take account of the problem. I hope that the banks will work with us to find a solution to what most Members on both sides of the House would agree has been a perennial difficulty for small businesses in all our constituencies, some of which contain 3,000, 4,000 or even 5,000 of them—many very small indeed. We are in a position to make progress, and I hope there will be consensus on the report's findings.
Dr. Vincent Cable: I welcome the Chancellor's statement, and the Government's commitment to prompt and full implementation of the report's recommendations.
Does the Chancellor agree that the report fully vindicates the findings of the Cruickshank report, published two years ago, despite their rubbishing by the banks themselves? Does he agree with the central conclusion of that report that there are profound competition problems in this sector as a result of complex monopoly, the leading clearers' control of the central clearing system and, indeed, the banks' continued enjoyment of regulatory privileges—for instance, the fact that the Government are their lender of last resort? Does the Chancellor accept that basic analysis?
Does the Chancellor also accept that his cautious approach—it has taken two years, since the publication of the Cruickshank report, to reach the conclusions—

1023
has meant that the small business sector had roughly £1.5 billion of excess profits taken out of it by the banking system? That has swamped the positive incentives that he put hack into small business, such as £200 million for the small business research and development tax credit. As the Office of Fair Trading report rejects the idea of a levy on banks, what measures does he propose in order to retrieve some of the £1.5 billion excess profit of the past two years and to put it back into small business?
The Cruickshank analysis has been vindicated. It suggested that there was up to £5 billion of excess profits altogether, much of it taken from personal consumers as well as small business. In light of that, when do the Government propose to implement their long-promised recommendations to introduce Paycom, a payments regulator? Ministers have told me in response to written and oral questions and Adjournment debates for more than two years that that is imminent, but it has yet to materialise.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has taken a long-standing interest in such matters. I am also grateful to him for dealing with the specifics, unlike the shadow Chancellor.
First, Ms DeAnne Julius's work on the banking code is moving ahead as a result of the Cruickshank report. Secondly, we are committed to opening up the money transmission services. That is Government policy. Thirdly, however, we reject a windfall tax, as does the Competition Commission. The previous Conservative Government imposed the only windfall tax on banks, and that was for the same reason—to deal with the failure of banks to pay interest on current accounts at a time of high interest rates in the early 1980s.
We believe that because the injury is to small businesses themselves, the best thing is to reduce costs for small businesses. That is why the option for the transitional period is either to pay a rate of interest on current accounts or to provide free banking services for the money transmission services that are involved. Both of those could be worth substantial amounts of money to a small business if properly implemented, and it is now for the Director General of Fair Trading to work on that.
Our proposals are directed at the problem, which is that small businesses must get a better deal. As I said, I hope that we can make progress quickly on the recommendations. Although the Competition Commission says that there are six months in which the undertakings can be discussed, we hope—and I believe—that the Director General of Fair Trading also hopes that we can move forward sooner.
As for incentives for small business, the hon. Gentleman will have noted my statements in the past few weeks in which I have made it clear that we are determined to do more to help small businesses to amass the funds to invest and to be able to seek equity, to start exporting and to hire new employees. That is our aim, and it will be advanced by measures in the Budget.
Mr. James Plaskitt: The 5,000 small businesses in my constituency will welcome the Chancellor's statement. The commission's report is a serious document. It basically finds the banks guilty of
1024
monopoly exploitation. In view of that, does my right hon. Friend agree that the banks should respond quickly to the findings? They should at least do something about charges and current account terms in less than the six months envisaged by the report. That would make a start on repaying more than £700 million-worth of overcharges.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is also a member of the Treasury Committee. I hope that its work on this matter will yield results.
My hon. Friend is right to say that we should make progress as quickly as possible. All hon. Members know that we are dealing with a long-standing grievance and, indeed, a long-standing problem; the evidence is that action should be taken. However, I stress to him and the 5,000 businesses operating in his constituency that will benefit from the measures announced today that a healthy and profitable banking sector is in everyone's interests. There will be periods in the economic cycle in which banks should and will have to earn above average profits. Where those arise from the absence of competition, we should act. Therefore, I hope that all the recommendations that are central to the improvement of competition can be followed through.
On the transitional remedy, my hon. Friend will note that the Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce said only a few days ago:
"To stop this overcharging, we would advocate that the Secretary of State must cap the charges of the big four banks until the competition is more secure."
Our remedy is more flexible than that, but it is clear that many of the business organisations are demanding action, and demanding action now. We can be both pro profit for banks and pro competition.
Sir Teddy Taylor: In making such major changes, will the Chancellor bear in mind the danger of undermining one of our most successful institutions, which has high standards that are greatly appreciated by people all over the world? Does he accept that, with regard to small businesses, the banks have to carry a massive burden of bad debts and failed businesses, and that it is only fair to take that into account? What are the figures?
On competition, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Clydesdale bank in Scotland—happily owned by Australians—pays interest on its current accounts to people like me? Is it not unfair to undermine the banks by talking only about the costs and not the massive burdens? Will he give a figure on the banks' bad debts and failed businesses?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has taken an interest in these matters at a British and European level for some time. He seems to have a more intimate knowledge of the banking system than the shadow Chancellor.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the assessment of the methodology that was used by the Competition Commission, and what allowance has been made for the large amount of bad debts that have to be written off by the banks. The Competition Commission also took into account in its methodology the effects of the economic cycle in which, at certain points, higher than average

1025
profits can be expected to be earned. There is also the issue of the allowance made for intangible assets by the methodology adopted by the Competition Commission.
We have considered these matters carefully, as has the Competition Commission. It is because the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman are rightly raised by members of the public and the banks that we asked Sir Bryan Carsberg, a renowned international expert on these issues, to look at the methodology. The notation with the documentation that the House has shows that he has expressed his confidence in the general approach taken. I believe that people will reach exactly the conclusion that we reached when they look at the figures that are available.
On the general point about banks, of course the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Britain wants and should be proud of a healthy, profitable banking sector, but it cannot be at the expense of little competition or a complex monopoly. When that is the case, it is our duty to take action. The hon. Gentleman speaks from the Back Benches and has done for these past 20 years; I think that he will agree that it is sad that when this problem was put to Conservative Ministers in the 1990s, they did nothing about it.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: For 10 years during that period, and before I entered this House, I ran a business in the City and suffered exactly the sort of banking disservice that was provided to small and medium-sized enterprises such as mine. I welcome this report with the enthusiasm of somebody who suffered under those practices for so long.
My right hon. Friend referred to radical measures which have been discussed and considered in the report. In particular, I would have urged him to pursue the windfall tax, but I take the reasons and the rationale behind his decision not to pursue that course and go out of line with the regulator's suggestions. However, if there is any dilatoriness on the part of the banks in implementing the recommendations, sorting out their service to the public and repaying the extra profits that they have made through an improvement of service, I urge my right hon. Friend to hold that option up his sleeve.
Michael Fabricant: Bravissimo!
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should not be so unkind to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who at least has views on the matter that he is prepared to express, unlike the shadow Chancellor, who had nothing to add to the debate.
My hon. Friend is right to say that action is needed now. That is why the proposals have been put forward under such a time scale. It is also the case that the new banking code proposals—I applaud the banks—were made in the past few days. Many of the proposals are a welcome advance on the previous position, and I welcome the specific recommendations in them. The Competition Commission believes that there should be further reforms of the banking code and has made informal suggestions about compensation and other matters where it feels there are errors that should be taken into account. Equally, we can move forward quite quickly with the other recommendations.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend about the case for a windfall tax, as I have explained. Perhaps the Conservative party will be the only party to propose that,
1026
as it imposed a windfall tax on the banks in the early 1980s. It is important to say that we are both pro profit—we need the banks to be profitable—and pro competition.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Chancellor accept that the statement that he began reading at 12.30 pm was one of the longest that he has made since he took office other than on Budget day? Does he accept that that means that it must have been a considerable time in the drafting? Does he also accept that he has given a totally inadequate response to the shadow Chancellor on his discourtesy in notifying the House at only seven minutes past 12 that such a statement would take place? Will he give an undertaking not to show such discourtesy to the House in the future? Finally, does he recognise that that was not only a discourtesy to the House and to the Opposition, but that it particularly upset his friends in the Liberal Democrats, whose Treasury spokesman was not even here to hear his statement?
Mr. Brown: I take it that the hon. Gentleman was trying to make a point about the Liberal Democrats by a very circuitous route. The fact of the matter is that this Government are bringing the Competition Commission report to the House with a statement, which he should applaud. We are also the Government who are publishing all the documents: the report of the Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Bryan Carsberg's report and today's report. We are doing so in a way that does not offend the normal procedures that must legally be pursued for Competition Commission reports. I would hope that the shadow Chancellor, as a lawyer, would begin to understand that.
All these points about procedure from Conservative Members are designed to obscure the most important fact to come out of this discussion—that they cannot even tell us at this point whether they support the major remedies that are proposed.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Could he clarify what action is proposed to reimburse small businesses? I am sure that he knows that although most businesses are overcharged, they do not receive 100 per cent. reimbursement. Will he say a little more about that?
Mr. Brown: We are proposing action for now and for the future; we are not proposing retrospective action and neither was the Competition Commission report. We have said that competition decisions should be independent of political interference. I hope that, in the light of what the Conservative party said at the election and what the Liberal Democrat party has said consistently, there can he all-party consensus that these decisions are best made by independent authorities under rules established by the House in legislation. While we prepare to legislate for that, we have the legal responsibility to announce and make those decisions.
We have done everything in our power. We appointed Sir Bryan Carsberg and consulted the director general, arid my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have studied in detail all the recommendations. It is right to go ahead now to implement those recommendations, which have been put forward by the Competition Commission, supported by

1027
the Director General of Fair Trading—the methodology having been assessed by Sir Bryan Carsberg. I hope that there can be consensus on that.
Mr. John Redwood: I welcome the Chancellor's strong commitment to competition and the remedies that will improve the service to small businesses. I wish that his belief in competition would extend to the currencies that they might bank in so that they could continue to have the choice of the pound or the euro. Is he at all worried that if the banks plan sharing branches at the same time as their revenues are cut, their response will be another big round of branch closures? What will he do to stop that getting out of hand and damaging the service, which we would not want?
Mr. Brown: I see no need for that to happen, but it is precisely so that the details can be studied that the Competition Commission has recommended—we support that recommendation—that the banks should prepare a report for the Director General of Fair Trading. I appreciate that that is one concern that will he expressed. We believe that it is a soluble problem. The right way to proceed is for the banks and the director general to consider those detailed undertakings and for the work to be done on that. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman supports not only the independence of the Competition Commission but its recommendations in general.
Mr. Redwood indicated assent.
Mr. Brown: The recommendations are detailed and it is good that we have the right hon. Gentleman's support. I hope that we can now have the support of the shadow Chancellor.
Mr. Ben Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because a successful small firms sector is essential as the seedbed of future growth, the banks, by gaining excess profits—in effect, by ripping off small companies—have damaged the enterprise culture? Notwithstanding his earlier remarks, does he think that, in those circumstances, a withholding or a windfall tax might have been used to provide the venture capital and the higher risk financing that those small firms so desperately need?
Mr. Brown: I know that my hon. Friend was formerly a business adviser. I also know that during the next few days strong feelings on these matters will be expressed in every phone-in programme and letters column because people feel strongly about the costs of banking services and about the failure in many cases to pay interest on current accounts.
However, we have a balanced set of recommendations that point our way in both the present and the future. I am in favour neither of the withholding tax in Europe nor of the windfall tax that has been examined by the Competition Commission. The commission examined and rejected the tax—as we are right to do—but I hope that we can move ahead with agreement on all the other measures that offer the prospect of opening up
1028
competition in the small business market while giving small businesses an immediate remedy as we wait for that competition to take effect.
Mr. Michael Weir: Neither the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru nor any of the Ulster parties received an advance copy of the Chancellor's statement. Surely it is unacceptable that some parties received an advance copy while others did not.
That said, on behalf of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, I welcome the recommendations as a step forward. We are especially interested in the Chancellor's remarks about a national network of sharing branches. Does he realise that, due to branch-network closure programmes over the past few years, there are no bank branches at all in many rural and some inner-city areas? When he discusses those matters with the banks, will he consider proposals for extending banking to those areas to encourage small businesses to set up and continue there? When there are no bank branches, it is difficult for such businesses to continue to operate—especially those that are cash-intensive.
Mr. Brown: It is precisely for those reasons that there is work to make the network available to new entrants. It is also for those reasons that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), who has responsibility for small business, has taken a great interest in bank branches in rural areas. The Post Office also has a role.
I ask the House to bear in mind not only that, historically, statements about the Competition Commission, or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, have not been made in the House—that was the practice followed by the previous Government—but that the shadow Chancellor asked me a question. I wrote to him this morning, stating that:
"The reports contain information about particular businesses"—
individual companies—
"which until the report is published is confidential under section 133 of the Fair Trading Act and onward disclosure is prohibited under this section."
I have to take account of the legal requirements on me when I make information available before a statement. The previous Conservative Government never made statements on such matters; they must have had a good reason at the time.
Roger Casale: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement because—as perhaps he can confirm—many thousands of businesses in my constituency might be being overcharged by between £250 and £300 a year for banking services. Although Members on both sides of the House—but not the shadow Chancellor—support the proposals, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the Labour Government who are listening to the needs of small businesses through the operation of the Small Business Council and other bodies? It is this Government who are standing up for the interests of small businesses and taking action to promote enterprise and competition. It is this Government who are succeeding for small businesses where the previous Government failed.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are more small businesses in this country, and the

1029
measures that we are adopting are designed to encourage even more. He is also right to say that, if the overcharging from 1998 to 2000 is in the order of £725 million a year—of course that depends on the interest rates in operation at any particular time—many small businesses are paying a high tariff for their banking services, which could be removed with this remedy, or they are not receiving interest on their current accounts, which the banks can now consider. The flexibility of our remedies allows banks to make a choice between those two.
I believe that the Liberal and nationalist parties are prepared to support our measures. It is unfortunate that, although the putative shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), has expressed support for them, the shadow Chancellor himself has still not said what he thinks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to give everyone who wants to the opportunity to speak, but I ask hon. Members to be brief and ask one question, and one question only.
Mr. James Clappison: The Chancellor gave the costs of overcharging as £725 million. What is his estimate of the total cost to business of additional Government regulation imposed in the past two Parliaments? Are those who say that it is £5 billion right?
Mr. Brown: The Minister of State at the Cabinet Office announced only a few days ago the scrapping of a whole series of regulations that had been introduced by the Conservative Government and other previous Governments. We are working with the small business community in our regulatory taskforce to remove regulation. The hon. Gentleman should remember that we cut the rate of small business tax from 23p to 20p—to the lowest rate in our history—and that we introduced a 10p starting rate for small businesses on profits up to £10,000, and a rate between 10p and 20p on profits from £10,000 to £50,000. He should also remember that, despite all the talk from the Conservative party, it was the Labour Government who cut capital gains tax.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Small businesses in my constituency will see the publication of the report and the Chancellor's actions as vindication of their deep-seated concerns over many years about
1030
excessive profit-taking by the largest four banks. Is there any hope of his predecessors as Chancellor heading to Palace Green to apologise for failing to take the action that he has taken?
Mr. Brown: That is a matter for previous Chancellors. My hon. Friend is right to say that it was time to take action. It is regrettable that at the time when small businesses were complaining most, especially in the early 1990s, so little was done to help them. It is possible to build a consensus around developing the enterprise culture, and I would have thought that all parties would now be prepared to join it. My remarks are directed to the shadow Chancellor, and I seek his views on our proposals.
Michael Fabricant: Like my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor, I welcome the statement, but as with all such matters, the devil is in the detail. It is unfortunate that the Chancellor had cloth ears when my right hon. and learned Friend was speaking.
It is a great disappointment to me personally, and no doubt to others who are listening to our debate, that the Chancellor did not say anything about funds deposited by ZANU-PF, Mugabe and others in this country, which could have been seized, and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need for the Chancellor to answer that question.
Mr. John Burnett: When does the Chancellor believe that the cartel of the money transmission service or central clearing will finally he ended?
Mr. Brown: We will announce detailed proposals on that matter in due course.
Mr. David Laws: Has the Chancellor concluded that there is clear evidence of monopolistic practice in the personal banking market, and if so, what is the timetable for taking action?
Mr. Brown: That is not the subject of the statement, which is about small business banking. We referred the matter to the Competition Commission, which has produced a report that is now before the House. Along with the commission, we are proposing to take action. As for the personal banking sector, that is not the subject of the review.

Zimbabwe
1.24 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Zimbabwe.
Yesterday, Robert Mugabe was declared the official winner in the presidential election. That result should, however, surprise no one. ZANU-PF had long been bent on achieving precisely that outcome by any means and at all costs. The Zimbabwean Government have subjected their electorate to two years of violence and intimidation. They have harassed Opposition candidates and supporters, manipulated the voters' rolls and restricted access to polling stations. They have exploited every instrument of the state—the military, the police, media, youth militias and the bureaucracy—to distort the outcome of the election.
ZANU-PF did its utmost to conceal the extent of its violence and malpractice from the eyes of the world. It excluded European Union election observers, monopolised domestic television and radio, and restricted international media organisations, including the BBC. None of those actions were the actions of a party confident of its ability to win a free or fair election. The elections can be judged only by agreed international standards, not least the declaration signed by Commonwealth Heads of Government, chaired by President Mugabe, in Harare in 1991.
Only three months before the election, in December last year, on the basis of the principles of the Harare declaration, the Commonwealth concluded that
"the situation in Zimbabwe constitutes a serious and persistent violation of the Commonwealth's fundamental political values and the rule of law".
That conclusion was reinforced in January, and again a week before the polls closed. The situation got worse during the election.
A key yardstick by which any electoral process must be judged is impartial electoral administration, but there was nothing impartial about the process in Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe staffed Zimbabwe's electoral supervisory commission with partisan army officers. The names of who could and could not vote were not settled until just days before the election, amidst allegations of fraudulent practice. During the election itself, the electoral commission reduced the number of polling booths in urban areas to restrict the Opposition vote. In many rural areas, the Opposition say that their polling agents and monitors were prevented from inspecting ballot boxes before voting started. Others were not allowed inside polling stations. Many Opposition workers say they were abducted, detained or arrested by supporters of the ruling party or the security forces.
As the House will know, while European Union and other observers were excluded from observing the electoral process, some groups of election observers were allowed into the country. Earlier today, I received the preliminary report of the Commonwealth observers group, which comes to a number of coruscating conclusions about the conduction of the election. It said:
"The violence and intimidation created a climate of fear and suspicion."
1032
It said that the police
"appeared to be high-handed in dealing with the MDC and lenient towards supporters of … ZANU-PF. This failure to impartially enforce the law seriously calls into question the application of the rule of law in Zimbabwe."
It said:
"We were concerned that the legislative framework within which the elections were conducted … was basically flawed."
It went on:
"Limitations on the freedom of speech movement and…association prevented the opposition from campaigning freely."
It continued:
"We … found that thousands of Zimbabwean citizens were disenfranchised".
It concluded:
"All the foregoing brings us to the conclusion that the conditions in Zimbabwe did not adequately allow for a free expression of will by the electors."
That set of conclusions has been confirmed in a report by parliamentary observers from the Southern African Development Community. It makes similar, very serious criticisms of the process, and concludes that
"the electoral process could not be said to adequately comply with the Norms and Standards for Elections in the SADC region."
I shall place both reports in the House of Commons Library.
Zimbabweans have plainly been denied their fundamental right to choose by whom they are governed. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing my admiration for the people of Zimbabwe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—whose faith in democracy was so strong that they queued for days to vote, in the face of police violence. In some cases, they were denied the right to vote. They are the true democrats, but they deserve a great deal better.
What adds to the tragedy is that, until recently, Zimbabwe was the pride of Africa—the bread basket of the continent. Robert Mugabe's disastrous economic polices have severely damaged his own country. Unemployment is running at 70 per cent. and inflation at 112 per cent. Last year, its gross domestic product declined by 10 per cent., and the same decline is expected this year. In the space of two years, Robert Mugabe's prime achievement will have been to contract Zimbabwe's economy by at least a quarter.
The failure of the electoral process in Zimbabwe is a tragedy not just for Zimbabwe, but for the people of southern Africa as a whole. The rand of the Republic of South Africa depreciated by 40 per cent. in the past year. The people of southern Africa deserve better, too. Their Governments will inevitably bear most of the responsibility in helping the region to recover, and we shall of course continue to work with them in that task.
The House will know that, on 18 February. the European Union decided to impose sanctions, which were targeted against the leadership of ZANU-PF. They included a travel ban, an assets freeze and a ban on arms sales. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will travel to Barcelona this afternoon, and at the summit to be held in that city we will review the position with our EU partners.
We are also working closely with the United States Government. They have already announced a travel ban on the ZANU-PF leadership and are considering a

1033
possible broadening of sanctions, along the lines of those already enforced by the EU. We will continue to work closely with them, and with our G8 and SADC partners.
The House will know that, at the turn of the year, Her Majesty's Government took the view, on evidence available then, that Zimbabwe should be suspended from the Commonwealth. Events since then have simply confirmed that judgment. Regrettably, Commonwealth Heads of Government decided not to follow that course, but to appoint instead a troika of South Africa, Nigeria and Australia to decide on Zimbabwe's Commonwealth status. We await its conclusions in the light of the strongly worded Commonwealth? observers group report, to which I have already drawn the House's attention, and the more detailed report that the observers group promises.
In the face of the deprivation heaped on them by their own Government, it is crucial that we and the international community stand by the people of Zimbabwe. We will therefore maintain our programme of humanitarian assistance, and our assistance in the fight against HIV-AIDS. However, I tell the House that we will continue to oppose any accessing by the Government of Zimbabwe of international financial resources until a more representative Government are in place.
Robert Mugabe may claim to have won this election, but the people of Zimbabwe have lost. We are faced with a leader who is determined to ignore the international community, to ignore his people and to ignore the grave consequences of his actions. Change will have to come to Zimbabwe. One day—I hope soon—we can look forward to a democratic Government of Zimbabwe, acting in the interests of all their peoples, and taking their rightful place in a modern Africa.
Some have sought to suggest that this is a conflict between Africa and the west, black against white and south against north. I reject that totally. At its heart, this is a matter of the universal worldwide principle of the right of people, wherever they live, freely to determine their own future. That principle has been flouted in Zimbabwe, and all democrats should speak with one voice in condemning what has taken place.
Mr. Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for making his statement today on Mr. Mugabe's election result and for letting me see a copy in advance.
I refer to Mr. Mugabe's election result rather than his victory, because the word "victory" has glamorous connotations. Yesterday's result in Zimbabwe contained nothing glamorous at all. It was sordid, dishonest, underhand, undemocratic and wrong. It should not be allowed to stand. President Bush is right to have made it clear that he will not recognise the result, and we should do the same. For all the Foreign Secretary's fine words, I am disappointed that nothing in what he said suggested that that would be the case.
We must avoid the temptation of a emotional reaction. We need to look dispassionately at the evidence of what has happened and to be able to demonstrate that the election was not only flawed, but rigged well in advance of polling and neither free nor fair. It has not been free for months. The long run-up to the elections has been marked by violence, intimidation and the use of terror as a political weapon. The House should not forget that in the 12 months to January this year we had already seen
1034
48 political murders, 329 abductions and 2,245 cases of torture, and there have been many more since. We have seen the media gagged, and reputable international broadcasters expelled and labelled as terrorists. All those are the attributes of fascist regimes through history.
Nor was the election fair. From the outset the process has been corrupted, as the Foreign Secretary set out in detail today and as the reports from the Commonwealth and SADC so clearly and graphically confirm. It is worth remembering that in March last year SADC set out 11 election recommendations that were subsequently endorsed by all SADC members, including Zimbabwe. Not one of the 11 recommendations has been adhered to.
I shall remind the House of some of those recommendations and what happened. They included impartial international and regional election observers at the earliest possible stage—that did not happen; equal access to the media for opposition parties—that was not allowed; impartial policing of the ballot—laughable; presidential candidates to be provided with free and adequate security during the election process—laughable; and unimpeded freedom to campaign and freedom to vote throughout the country—laughable.
The result sets several serious tests in different areas. It is a test for southern Africa of whether the region genuinely adheres to the principles of democracy set out in the Harare declaration. It is a test for the Commonwealth of whether the principles on which it is founded mean anything at all. It is also a test for the Prime Minister, who has spoken about
"healing the scar … that is Africa"
to show whether he can, even belatedly, give the leadership to mend what is not just a scar but an open and bleeding wound on the body of that great continent.
I do not believe that what the Foreign Secretary has said today goes nearly far enough—it sounded like just more of what we have heard before. Once again, it is hope against experience. Why does not the Foreign Secretary today make it clear that the Government do not recognise the result or the legitimacy of the Zimbabwean Government and take steps accordingly?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): He did.
Mr. Ancram: He did not.
Will the Foreign Secretary urgently consult his European Union counterparts in Barcelona this evening to see whether the targets of the sanctions can be extended in the way that the MDC has called for today? Will he seek the maximum degree of non-recognition of this result and of the Government of Zimbabwe throughout the international community, including suspension from the Commonwealth? Will he and the Prime Minister, together with the United States, take a lead in building an international coalition, including Europe and responsible members of the Commonwealth, to bring real and determined pressure to bear on Zimbabwe for new presidential elections to be held? Mr. Mugabe has got away with this election because the international community in general, and our Government in particular, did not show him months ago that we meant business when we called for free and fair elections. Like all tyrants, Mugabe has fed on the belief that brave statements from

1035
this Government and others were all words and would not be backed up by action. To our shame, for many months, he was correct in that belief.
The time for mere words is now over. There must be no more quiet diplomacy, no more hand wringing and no more supine inaction. They have all failed, and they have failed the people of Zimbabwe in the process. For the sake of the people of Zimbabwe, and for the sake of democracy, the Government must recognise that the time has come to stop talking and to start doing.
Mr. Straw: I understand fully the right hon. Gentleman's anger and frustration about what has happened because I share it, but much of his response amounted to tilting at windmills. He asks for us to take action in the Commonwealth. We have sought to do so. I have been in the lead in that regard, but the fact is that the Commonwealth is a free association of 54 countries. There was not a majority—and still less unanimity—in the Commonwealth for suspension before elections took place. I hope that there is now agreement inside the troika, because that would be an important mark of the Commonwealth's disapproval of what has happened.
The right hon. Gentleman asks us to build an international consensus. With respect, that is exactly what we have been doing. He asks for action. That is exactly what has been secured inside the European Union.
Mr. Ancram: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the result?
Mr. Straw: I thought that I had made it palpably obvious that we do not recognise the result or its legitimacy. There is no difference between the position that we have taken and that taken by President Bush.
As the right hon. Gentleman asked for action, I say to him gently that we were able to secure the required unanimous approval of the European Union to impose sanctions. As it happens, those sanctions are being imposed on a broader basis than those that the United States, with which we have been working closely, has introduced up to now. Had the right hon. Gentleman been holding my office, with his party's approach to the European Union, would that unanimity have been achieved?
I regret the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks. Neither Opposition spokesmen nor anyone else should move the blame for what has happened from where it must lie. It cannot be moved to the international community or to the House. The blame and responsibility must lie fairly and squarely on the shoulders of Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF. Nothing would please them more than if they were let off the hook by the kind of ill-advised remarks that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench.
I hope that the House will send out its determination that it recognises where the responsibility lies but, equally, that it recognises our responsibility to continue relentlessly to do all that we can by deeds as well as words to ensure that Mugabe and ZANU-PF are accorded neither the international status nor the assistance and recognition that they seek. Instead, we shall strive for a democratic election in Zimbabwe and a democratic Government.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I feel constrained to echo the words of my right hon. Friend
1036
the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) when the Prime Minister reported after the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting—that if ever there were occasions on which the House should speak with one voice, it is occasions such as this.
The Foreign Secretary said that we should not be surprised by the result. We should not be surprised either by the conduct of the elections, as the behaviour of ZANU-PF during them was entirely consistent with the campaign of violence, abuse and intimidation that characterised its behaviour towards opponents in the period running up to them. The sad and unpalatable truth is that, for all its optimism, it would have taken little short of a miracle for the Movement for Democratic Change to have won the election.
In light of the Commonwealth observers group's trenchant and unequivocal condemnation, would not it be inconceivable for the troika to reach any conclusion other than that suspension was a necessary and inevitable response from the Commonwealth? What hope would there be for the Commonwealth as an institution based on the rule of law and on respect for human rights if its response to these events was seen to be feeble?
The Foreign Secretary is right to put his trust in concerted action, and to engage the European Union. This is an occasion on which we should acknowledge the helpful, even exemplary, support that the United States has shown in these matters, both in the Administration and in the Congress.
Finally, does the Foreign Secretary share my disappointment about the consequences of Mr. Mugabe's re-election? The right hon. Gentleman outlined the terrible domestic conditions in Zimbabwe, which will now continue, but Mr. Mugabe's behaviour has also placed an enormous burden on the whole of the region of southern Africa. Is not it a terrible tragedy that these events may set back, perhaps irretrievably, the renaissance for Africa in which so much hope has been invested?
Mr. Straw: May I commend the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), and the tone in which they were offered? I agree that this debate should not be an occasion for partisanship in the House. There needs to be unanimity. After all, an important element here is that hon. Members are democratically and freely elected. Some of us have lost quite a few elections, even in the free and fair conditions that apply in this country. I spent 18 years in opposition, so I know about losing elections freely. That is bad enough, but to have an election stolen from one is much worse.
Mr. Paul Keetch: Freedom!
Mr. MacShane: Just like Israel.
Mr. Straw: I will not be drawn down that route.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife asked whether it would be inconceivable, in the light of the trenchant comments made in the Commonwealth observers' initial report, for the troika not to recommend suspension. I understand the strength of that view. He and the House know very well that, even on the evidence available in December, the Government thought that the Commonwealth ought to suspend Zimbabwe's

1037
membership. Given that the evidence has mounted since then, and given what Commonwealth observers have concluded, we think that still more today.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife asked about the future of the Commonwealth. I happen to believe that it is a strong organisation. Those of us who have attended some of the Commonwealth celebrations and seen, for example, the breadth of the nongovernmental organisations involved will appreciate the huge contribution that the Commonwealth makes to civic society—and not just to inter-governmental relations—in its 54 member countries. Plainly, however, the Commonwealth's reputation could not but be damaged if no action were taken in the light of the Commonwealth observers' report.
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife for mentioning the exemplary support that the United States has shown. I would add, parenthetically, that, of course, the US has interests in Zimbabwe, but that the United Kingdom's interests there are far greater. I hope that those who say that the US worries only about its own interests, is isolationist and does not consult its international colleagues, will recognise that it has been highly consultative over Zimbabwe, as in so many other matters, and that it has taken action because of its responsibility as a member of the international community rather than for its own, particular reasons.
As to the overall consequences of the election on the region, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife asks whether it will set back irretrievably the chances of a renaissance in Africa. I do not believe so; I do not believe that we should accord Mugabe that power. This is a setback, and it will be even more of a setback if other leaders in southern Africa do not recognise the huge task that they now face to rebuild confidence not only in other southern African countries but in Zimbabwe itself.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is right to say that this is no time for narrow party points—the situation is far too serious. One of the most important things that he has told the House is that both SADC and the Commonwealth observers have roundly condemned the election as a total fraud. That is an important message because it gives the lie to those in the Mugabe camp who try to argue that this is a north-versus-south argument, the rich against the poor in Africa. We must establish both in this country and internationally that it is the ordinary people of Zimbabwe who have been robbed in this election. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell the House that he will take that message to Barcelona. The role of the European Union is not to lead world opinion but to work with our friends in democratic states throughout Africa and elsewhere who recognise that this election is a fraud against democratic principles.
One of the most certain consequences of the election is that the situation in Zimbabwe will continue to deteriorate. It is implausible to say that it will get better or stabilise. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we will continue to support people such as Mr. Tsvangirai in the MDC and those who are pushing for democratic change? When one party has stolen an
1038
election, it is legitimate to suspend the normal terms and conditions of impartiality. We should support those in Zimbabwe who will fight for democracy.
Mr. Straw: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is right to say that the ordinary people of Zimbabwe have been robbed by this election result. One of the many untruths that Mugabe was trying to peddle is that this is a black-versus-white issue. However, if one looks at those who have been the target of the ZANU-PF police state machine, one finds that they are overwhelmingly the blacks of Zimbabwe, particularly the urban blacks and those in rural areas who have dared to express opposition. All the reports overwhelmingly show that to be the case. As far as I know, the SADC parliamentary forum is almost exclusively black—it has condoned the outcome of the elections—and, like the Commonwealth itself, the Commonwealth observers group is multi-racial and is led by a Nigerian.
We will continue to do all that we can to support everybody in Zimbabwe who has at their heart the universal principles of democracy and of free and fair elections.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: The Foreign Secretary is aware, because I have told him, that when my father was the last governor of southern Rhodesia, I visited with him the polling stations on the first day of those remarkable elections, which were not perfect, when tens of thousands of people queued, as they have done in the past few days, to express for the first time their democratic wish. So much bright hope was vested for the future, only for it to be smashed to pieces in the last few days. The message that should go from this House to the people of Zimbabwe is that we feel for them in their great difficulty and in the grief that most of them will be suffering.
May I urge the Foreign Secretary to lobby vigorously, if he is entitled to do so, among the 54 members of the Commonwealth to ensure that the troika does its duty and that the spirit of those reports, which will have been gained with considerable difficulty, is honoured in the only proper decision that the troika could make?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for their tone. I recall our conversation, in which he recounted with great poignancy his experiences of being alongside his father when an entirely peaceful handover of power took place. Great hope was vested in Mugabe and many others, and there was a free and fair election, which led to an outcome that was not anticipated. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that bright hope has been smashed to pieces.
The hon. Gentleman asks me whether we shall lobby vigorously within the Commonwealth. Yes, we will. Given all the pressures on the observers, including subtle intimidation—European Union observers were refused admission—and some violence, it is remarkable that they have come out with such strident conclusions. Given those pressures, their conclusions should be treated with greater seriousness.
Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend made a sad statement, but one that came as no surprise to any of us who have watched events in Zimbabwe over recent years. There was an erosion of democracy in the elections and attacks on the freedom of the press and the judiciary.

1039
Should we not be making it clear to people in Zimbabwe, especially to ZANU-PF members and supporters, that the solution lies in their hands? It is for them to wake up before it is too late and before they have destroyed democracy and freedom in their country. They need to change direction now.
Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to imply that there has been extraordinary short-sightedness, even for people in ZANU-PF. They will not secure a bright future for their country nor an economic recovery. Instead, by stealing the election, they will make the situation in Zimbabwe worse.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's robust words in condemning the farce of an election in Zimbabwe. Has the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to read the statement from the SADC parliamentary forum election observation mission, which indicated that even members of the mission were part of the targeted violence in the run-up to the elections?
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is off to Barcelona, and that he will be discussing Zimbabwe in depth with our colleagues in the European Union. Will he tell the House whether he plans to contact the Heads of Government in the SADC region and to support the statement from the head of the SADC observer mission, who is calling for dialogue between the leaders of the SADC Governments and Mugabe, to try to arrive at some reconciliation or a new process that could lead to democracy in Zimbabwe?
Mr. Straw: I have seen the SADC conclusions, and I am placing copies of them and those of the Commonwealth observers in the Library. We shall be in touch with relevant Heads of Government within the SADC region. One of the reasons why the SADC conclusions are so powerful is that they come not from Government representatives but from parliamentary representatives.
David Winnick: In totally condemning Mugabe's tyranny, are not Labour Members being entirely consistent? In the 1960s, we used every opportunity to denounce the tyranny of Smith's illegal regime. I do not remember too many protests from Conservative Members in those days.
Has not the time come, given all that has happened this week, for the majority in the Commonwealth to come off the fence, recognise their democratic responsibilities and suspend Zimbabwe for as long as Mugabe is in power?
Mr. Straw: In the spirit of bipartisanship, I shall gently pass over my hon. Friend's earlier remarks.
It is a time for decision by those in the Commonwealth. Commonwealth Heads of Government, meeting in Coolum, Australia last week, decided to set up the troika. They have already had the published report. There will be a further, more detailed report. The view of the House is clear from the observations that Members on both sides have made and would make if they were members of the troika.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Clearly, it is essential that the House remains united today in its condemnation of this rigged election and the abuse of human rights by Mugabe and his regime. Is the Foreign Secretary comfortable with the role that has been played by President Mbeki, especially bearing in mind this morning's press reports that South African observers have said that the election was free and fair, when clearly it was not? Will he again underline how much damage will be done to South Africa if President Mbeki makes the wrong decision at the troika, and also underline today's run on the rand, which shows that there will be terrific disinvestment in South Africa if it is seen to support the regime in Harare?
Mr. Straw: We all recognise that President Mbeki of South Africa bears a very heavy burden of responsibility not only for the economy and prosperity of his country, but, because of South Africa's size and importance, for the prosperity of the entire region and the reputation of Africa as a whole. I am sure that he will read with care the remarks that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman and many others.
Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the history of Africa and especially southern Africa, minority military-backed regimes have inevitably been removed in time? If we look to Zambia, South Africa and elsewhere, we see that the trade union movement has played an important role in that process. In our response to this rigged election, should not we endeavour to reinforce our support for the mass independent trade unions in Zimbabwe as part of the process of democratic change?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that one of the many arguments against military regimes is that they are inherently unstable and short-lived and must be replaced by democracies. As to the trade union movement, it is not coincidental that Morgan Tsvangirai himself was a leader of that movement in Zimbabwe. On support for trade unions across Africa and indeed the world, yes, we agree that it is necessary. My hon. Friend may know that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), has been doing a huge amount of work to ensure that we in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office better support the work of the international trade union movement.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that not only this House, but the whole civilised democratic world must be united against what has happened in Zimbabwe in recent times? Does he agree that while Mr. Mugabe and ZANU-PF can claim a sordid victory, they certainly cannot claim any democratic legitimacy? Will he indicate to the House what action we can take to seek to protect Morgan Tsvangirai and members of the Movement for Democratic Change, the opponents of Mr. Mugabe and ZANU-PF? Will he also explain how we are going to help the poor people of that country, who were given a foretaste of what Mr. Mugabe would do way back in 1983–84, when he indulged in mass genocide of thousands of Matabele who opposed his Government?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has played a consistent and commendable role in the matter of

1041
Zimbabwe—and, before that, of Southern Rhodesia—over many years, which I commend. He drew attention to the massacres that took place in Matabeleland in the mid-1980s. That was a shameful episode not only for Zimbabwe, but for the international community, including the United Kingdom, which failed to take action. That is another reason why the remarks of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) were so ill judged. One of the things that makes the election results risible—I gather that this is the case from this morning's newspapers—is that it is said that Mugabe got a good vote in Matabeleland, where he is hated for palpable reasons. He could have got a good vote there only by methods that are never recognised in democratic and free countries. We will do all that we can to help people who have been in the lead of democratic movements of all kinds in Zimbabwe. I commend the hon. Gentleman's remarks about helping the poor people of Zimbabwe. The message that must go out from the House is that in everything we do as well as everything we say, we are working for the people of Zimbabwe and against a palpably undemocratic and illegitimate Government.
Tony Cunningham: I wholeheartedly support the condemnation expressed by my right hon. Friend this morning. Although we have heard condemnation from the American Government and European leaders, we also desperately need condemnation of this rigged election from African leaders. Does he have any plans to discuss this rigged election not only with SADC leaders, but with other African leaders in general?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend will find that there has been a pretty high degree of condemnation. As I said, there has been condemnation by the Nigerian leader of the Commonwealth observers and by the parliamentary representatives who formed the SADC delegation. Earlier this year, the Ghanaian Foreign Minister condemned what had happened in Zimbabwe up to that point. It would be a huge error that would play into Mugabe's hands if we were to allow the myth to develop that Africa is supporting him while the rest of the world is not. Most of Africa is shamed by what Mugabe has done and is now, thankfully, saying so.
Angus Robertson: I fully associate both the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru with the Foreign Secretary's statement and fully endorse the efforts that he is undertaking. In addition, I endorse entirely what has been said about the necessity of strong action and reaction through the European Union. Does he share with me the concerns illustrated in papers previewing the Barcelona summit, which show that common foreign and security policy questions are 25th out of 25 in order of importance on the agenda? Will he make every effort in Barcelona to try to force the issue higher up the agenda? Will he also try to push for European Union colleagues to increase targeted measures against leading ZANU-PF members, and make every effort to secure a tougher sanctions regime that is aimed solely at the governing elite and not the ordinary people of Zimbabwe?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support that he expressed on behalf of the SNP and Plaid Cymru. He asked about Barcelona. The reason why common foreign and security policy appears low on the
1042
agenda is that the summit is principally about the economic reform agenda that was set in place two years ago at Lisbon. I assure him that that does not mean for a second that Zimbabwe is low on the overall agenda of the European Union, which has acted commendably and swiftly in all that it has done, from moving back in the autumn from article 8 to article 96 of the Cotonou agreement, through to its decisions on 18 February to impose the sanctions. We will consider whether we can take other targeted measures and toughen up the sanctions regime, but as he said, in everything we do, we will ensure that such measures are targeted at the illegitimate leadership of the Government and not the people of Zimbabwe.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: This murderous tyrant is not only wreaking terrible damage in Zimbabwe, but seeking to provoke dangerous divisions in Africa and the Commonwealth. Will my right hon. Friend ignore the irresponsible, bellicose bluster of his shadow and continue to use careful diplomacy to try to encourage the neighbouring states to recognise that this is an issue not of race or colonialism, but of universal human rights and democracy?
Mr. Straw: Yes.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Could there not be at least one benefit from this sad tragedy that has befallen Zimbabwe and its people, namely that we may lose for ever any residual illusions about the nature of ZANU-PF and its Marxist dictator leader, Mr. Mugabe, who has acted entirely predictably, and whose actions could to some degree perhaps have been forestalled? That having been said, will Her Majesty's Government concert with the highest intensity with the United States Government, who have a good track record in dealing with rogue states in an appropriate manner?
Mr. Straw: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, leaving aside ZANU-PF's ideological baggage—it is not the only party in the world to have ideological baggage—as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who spoke so movingly about his experience witnessing his father's role as the last Governor-General of that country, said, for quite a long period ZANU-PF had some hope and expectation behind it. It is a huge pity that it has failed to meet that expectation. As to working with the United States, the answer is yes. We are, and will continue to be, in close touch with the United States Government.
Mr. Hugo Swire: May I press the Foreign Secretary on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that I did not feel received a suitable answer? Will he assure the House that when he speaks to his colleagues in Barcelona and elsewhere, they will discuss as a priority how they can guarantee the immediate and long-term safety of all those men and women in Zimbabwe who have had the courage to stand up to Mugabe and his thugs during the past few months?
Mr. Straw: I apologise to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) if he feels that I did not deal with that point. The answer is yes, we shall raise the issue

1043
of Zimbabwe not only at Barcelona, notwithstanding the constraints on the agenda, but also in the Foreign Ministers Council and at the European Heads of Government summit on a wider range of issues that will take place in Seville later this year.
Norman Lamb: Particularly in the light of the inability of South Africa, and President Mbeki in particular, to show greater leadership in the region, what future does the Foreign Secretary see for NEPAD and what role in particular should the G8 play in pushing that forward in the light of the election result?
Mr. Straw: NEPAD is about—[Interruption.] With great respect, it is not a laughing matter. If the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) does not know what the initials stand for, it shows a lack of information about a strategy for Africa, which I greatly regret.
The new partnership for Africa's development initiative is designed to try to turn round Africa's economic prospects and to lift Africa out of poverty. Africa is a continent which, uniquely out of all the continents in the world, has a declining, not growing, economy, and that is why the new African partnership is so crucial. The people of Africa should not be punished by the misbehaviour of one man, Mugabe, nor of his party. It is my great hope that what has happened in Zimbabwe overnight does not undermine the prospects of NEPAD, and, because of the way in which Mugabe is helping to reduce still further the prosperity of Africa, the paradox is that it becomes all the more urgent.
Mr. Charles Hendry: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that many hon. Members have constituents whose relatives have had farms seized in Zimbabwe or who have been threatened. Some of them have been killed and some of their innocent farm workers have been killed or brutally beaten. He will also be aware that those people are more worried than ever that Mugabe's thugs will believe that they can run rampant because they are unchallengeable and above the law. Does he therefore accept that this is no longer the time for lengthy discussion but for urgent action, as each passing day brings additional threats to people's livelihoods and safety? Will he therefore tell us the time scale for the troika to make its recommendations and for the Commonwealth to react to them? Will he ensure that the views of the House are relayed in terms not just of the unanimity of action that we believe needs to be taken, but also of its urgency?
Mr. Straw: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, our concern, like that of the House, is for everybody in Zimbabwe, regardless of the colour of their skin, citizenship or nationality. It speaks volumes for that concern that no one this afternoon has directly raised the issue of all the British citizens who are there, but I should make use of the opportunity of the hon. Gentleman's question to say that we have particular responsibilities to them and we shall ensure that those are carried out. I completely understand the anxieties of the white community in Zimbabwe, but in recent months the main violence has overwhelmingly been against the black community there. One should not have to make that point,
1044
but we hope that everybody, whatever their racial origins, colour or citizenship, if they are resident in Zimbabwe, can, notwithstanding the tragedy, still look forward to a future in Zimbabwe.
As to the time scale for the troika, my understanding is that it is intended that the troika should meet next week, and as soon as I have more detailed information I shall make it available to the House.
Hugh Robertson: The Foreign Secretary is correct to say that the consequences of Mugabe's victory will not be confined to Zimbabwe but affect surrounding countries. What plans are the Government putting in place to deal with the poverty and famine that flow directly from Mugabe's policies?
Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has already put in place humanitarian assistance programmes in Zimbabwe. It is extraordinary that here is a country that was exporting large quantities of agricultural produce across southern Africa which now has people starving, not because of any natural disaster but because of the man-made, Mugabe-made, disaster, by which he has taken power illegitimately and, in the course of his misuse of power, has managed to collapse the Zimbabwe economy and much of the economy of the rest of southern Africa. That is his appalling legacy. I know that I speak for my right hon. Friend when I say that, within the resources available to her, she will continue to do all that she can to provide humanitarian aid across southern Africa where it is needed and assistance in fighting HIV/AIDS.
Mr. Andrew Turner: My e-mail inbox, like that of many of my hon. Friends, has been heavy with e-mails from constituents and direct from Zimbabwe, reflecting the concern about all communities in that country. But are we not all guilty of having looked for many years through rose-tinted spectacles at dictatorships in Africa? Were not the Government whom I supported responsible for turning their face away from the intimidation in Matabeleland in the early 1980s? Have we not all patronised the Africans as somehow being undeserving of the same quality of democracy as we would expect for our people? Should we not admit those things? Will the Foreign Secretary press for a ban on international travel for any of the adherents of the Mugabe dictatorship and ensure that it is made clear that any aid that goes to Zimbabwe—aid will be greatly needed in future weeks and months—comes from those democracies that Mugabe so much reviles?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks are very wise and we all have lessons to learn here. He is particularly wise to say that it is and has been patronising of the international community somehow to imply that other standards should operate in Africa. A universal principle is at stake and, in so far as it needs spelling out, the great paradox or irony of the situation is that it was spelled out for the Commonwealth at the Harare meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in 1991 chaired by none other than Robert Mugabe.
On the ban on travel, the European Union and United States sanctions impose travel bans on 20 or so leading members of ZANU-PF. We are of course open to representations and shall consider whether those bans should be extended.

1045
On aid, we shall make it clear that aid comes from the democracies that Mugabe so despises. We need democracy because it applies a universal principle of freedom; one of the other truths about democracies is that they are almost always much more prosperous than dictatorships.

Business of the House
2.20 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business of the House up to the Easter recess will be as follows:
MONDAY 18 MARCH—Debate on hunting.
TUESDAY 19 MARCH—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. Until seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Crisis in Education and Skills Training" followed by a debate entitled "The Chinook Helicopter Crash".
WEDNESDAY 20 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Adoption and Children Bill.
THURSDAY 21 MARCH—There will be a debate on education of 14 to 19 year-olds on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 22 MARCH—The House will not be sitting.
MONDAY 25 MARCH—Second Reading of the State Pension Credit Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 26 MARCH—Hon. Members will wish to know that it is proposed that the House will meet from 11.30 am until 7 pm. The business of the day will be a motion to approve the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges on the registration of interest by Members who have not taken their seat.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill.
Motion on the Easter Recess Adjournment.
The House will wish to know that on Monday 18 March 2002, there will be a debate in European Standing Committee A relating to aircraft noise. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Monday 18 March 2002:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union documents: 15014/01 and 5119/02; Aircraft Noise. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report HC 152-xx (2001-02).]
Mr. Eric Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement.
On Friday 8 March the Adjournment debate in this Chamber was replied to not by the Minister responsible for the subject of the debate, but by a Government Whip. I raised the matter at the time, as you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you were in the Chair. Was that a one-off occurrence or is it to be routine that Ministers will not be here to listen and respond to debates on their ministerial responsibilities, but leave it to Government Whips? The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), who initiated the debate, said, touchingly naively, that he wanted the Government Whip
"to assure me that he"—
the Whip—
"will ensure that a Minister with specific responsibility for this matter will be made aware of my concerns, and will respond to the calls that I have made."—[Official Report, 8 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 614.]
So the hon. Gentleman whose debate it was had to make a heart-felt plea that its subject matter would be passed on to the absent Minister, who by that time, like Elvis, had left the building.

1047
That raises an issue of huge importance. Will the Leader of the House assure me, very firmly, that that occurrence will not be repeated and that the Government have not walked away from their responsibilities to such an extent that Ministers are no longer prepared to come to the House to respond to debates and be held to account?
The Leader of the House will be aware of the dreadful and appalling case of corruption that recently arose in Doncaster, where several Labour councillors were convicted of fraud. He should also be aware—if not, I am about to make him so—that yesterday in the House the Deputy Prime Minister said, in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), that
"a Conservative councillor was before the court at the same time."—[Official Report, 13 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 873.]
The Deputy Prime Minister was obviously trying to implicate or smear a Conservative councillor to put him in the same disgusting category as the large number of Labour councillors who were convicted.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Conservative councillor was acquitted of all charges, but the Labour councillors were convicted? I will understand if he is reticent about the issue. It must be difficult for Labour leaders who were involved with Ecclestone, Hinduja, Mittal and all the others to condemn their colleagues in local government. However, as the right hon. Gentleman was involved in none of those matters, I am sure that he will have no such inhibitions.
Will the Leader of the House turn his mind to the chaotic and increasingly disordered way in which statements are made in the House? Texts of statements are given to official Opposition spokesmen much later than has traditionally been the case. Whether that is cock-up or conspiracy, I can only guess. Will he find some way of giving the House more notice of statements? Today offers a good example. A very important statement such as that made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer could well have been made after the close of the markets yesterday evening. Attendance in the House is inevitably thin today because we do not have any votes. Consequently, many right hon. and hon. Members who have a legitimate interest in the matter and would have been here had they known that the statement was to be made are, regrettably, absent. Will the Leader of the House get a grip on his colleagues? In most cases it is known at least 48 hours in advance when statements are due to be made, so will Ministers please give the House proper notice so that we can deal with them properly?
Lord Browne, who was one of the Prime Minister's much-vaunted people's peers, earned—I am happy for him—several million pounds over the past year. I know that hairdressers were disqualified from being people's peers, but can the Leader of the House tell us whether there is any limit on the earnings that those peers can enjoy?
Mr. Cook: I did not anticipate that the Conservative party would propose a reverse means test for Members of the second Chamber, but we look forward to that provision featuring in its submission on the reform of that Chamber. I am happy to say that I have no responsibility whatsoever for pay awards made to Sir John Browne.
1048
[HON. MEMBERS: "Lord Browne."] I certainly have a responsibility not to demote him; I am happy to call him Lord Browne. Having disclaimed the criticism of his pay award, I think that honour is satisfied between us.
I shall deal with the matters for which I have responsibility. On last Friday's Adjournment debate, I assure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that, unlike Elvis, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), is alive and kicking. Indeed, he has shown no difficulty whatsoever about coming before the House. He has responded to 34 Adjournment debates since the last general election—by far the most achieved in a single Session by any Minister in the Government, or, I think, any in the previous Government. That is overwhelmingly because of the innovation of debates in Westminster Hall—which I welcome and support, unlike the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) for many years, including the period when he led the Labour group on Edinburgh district council. His colleagues there and in the House would be surprised by his being described as "touchingly naive". I take it that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to flatter my hon. Friend; I warn him that it will not work. Since the Adjournment debate, the Whip who replied to the debate has fully discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—
Mr. Forth: Impressive.
Mr. Cook: Indeed; I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of the ministerial level of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions at which the matter was raised. The Whip also wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to draw his attention to those matters that fell within the remit of the Home Office.
I can assure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that such practice will not be routine. In Westminster Hall, the Government rightly provided a facility that has greatly increased hon. Members' opportunities to raise matters concerning their constituencies. In those circumstances, it is not improper for the Government and the House to look at ways in which we can ensure that Adjournment debates are fully serviced and replied to, without putting on Ministers a burden that interferes with other matters with which they have to deal, such as responding to hon. Members' correspondence. [Interruption.] I assure hon. Members that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary does respond to correspondence.
On the Doncaster councillors, it is important for both parties to ensure that we apply the highest standards of propriety within our parties and make sure that legal requirements are fully observed. It would therefore greatly assist the House if the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst could tell us that he will use his influence with Lady Porter to encourage her to return to Britain to face the court proceedings against her relating to when she was leader of a Conservative council.
Finally, on the issue of the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have listened week after week to the right hon. Gentleman complaining that we do not have

1049
enough statements. Whenever we produce a statement, a complaint is made about it, and that happened again today. Let me remind him that this is the first time that a statement has been made to the House to announce the outcome of a Competition Commission—previously the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—inquiry. In their entire 18 years in office, a Conservative Minister never once came to the House to make a statement on the outcome of a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, and I genuinely believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor deserves to be congratulated on coming to the House. not criticised for it.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend is a master of procedure, so may I ask him for advice? On Monday, we shall vote on a series of motions on hunting with dogs. If the motion to ban hunting with dogs is carried by the Commons, as I believe it will be, is there any way in which we in this Chamber—or perhaps Labour Members in another forum—can express a view on whether the Hunting Bill, which was carried by the Commons in the last Session, can be brought back and dealt with in this Session before November as an alternative to a new Bill being introduced and the business of hunting with dogs hanging round our necks for the next two and a half years?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend characteristically flatters me; I would describe myself only as a humble student of procedure, and I am constantly surprised at how much more there is to learn.
I remind my hon. Friend that the Minister for Rural Affairs has given a commitment that before we rise for the Easter recess he will respond to Monday's votes and outline how the Government intend to proceed in the light of them. I suggest that my hon. Friend save his question until that opportunity, which I understand may come next week.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Leader of the House give some thought as to how best we can deal with the important issue of public disengagement with Parliament and politics? I think that he will accept that it is not just a matter of scepticism and cynicism about corruption, to which early-day motion 1003 relates, and to which reference has already been made.
[That this House condemns the behaviour of the former Doncaster councillor jailed on 12th March for accepting a bribe to change planning rules; congratulates former Doncaster councillor Ron Rose and the Yorkshire Post for their persistence in bringing the worst local government corruption case since the 1970s to light; congratulates South Yorkshire Police on its successful Operation Danum which has brought 21 councillors to justice; regrets the culture of institutionalised corruption which was allowed to develop unchecked by the national Labour Party; calls on the Government to introduce proposals for proportional representation to end one-party states in local government; and further calls on all parties to promote the highest standards of probity and public service in local government.]
Rather, there are longer-term concerns.
Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read the interesting article in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph by Sir John Nott, a distinguished former
1050
Cornish Member of the House and a former Minister of the Crown? The headline is "Thatcher obsessed with spin", which shows that some things are never new. Has he looked at the report which the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), apparently launched yesterday on democracy, citizenship and political engagement? Does he accept that this is a matter of concern not just to the Government but to all parties in the House? What steps can be taken in the near future to identify, one would hope, the causes for the trend of cynicism and scepticism about the democratic parliamentary process?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is not just a matter of low turnout at elections, which is perhaps a symptom of the disease, but that there are basic diseases behind that symptom? Low turnout is bad enough on average, but it is even worse in cases of safe seats when electors feel that they have no impact on the eventual result. This issue should concern every single Member of both Houses of Parliament, and should not simply be left to a Labour party document and the Labour party chairman.
Mr. Cook: I have not yet read the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall certainly savour it. I always enjoy reading articles by Margaret Thatcher's former Ministers criticising her; it is difficult to keep up with the scale of those articles.
The issue of substance raised by the hon. Gentleman presents a profound challenge for all of us. This is not a party political point; it should exercise hon. Members in all corners of the House. There is clear evidence of a decline in esteem for this place. That is why it is so important that we modernise this place so that we appear relevant and part of the same century as our electors. However, there are much wider and deeper problems of disengagement from the democratic process, particularly among young people. That troubles me because if young people continue to be disengaged we shall face declining turnouts as that cohort of the population grows older. This is a matter to which we should all address our minds.
I am particularly concerned that, too often, publicity about the House centres on the high point of party political contests and the mud wrestling that goes with it. We are not portrayed often enough as a place of serious business carrying out a serious job of work, and until we achieve that image of ourselves, we shall continue to have a problem in gaining respect.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 927?
[That this House is aware of the deep unease among honourable Members on all sides of the House at the prospect that Her Majesty's Government might support United States military action against Iraq; agrees with Kofi Annan that a further military attack on Iraq would be unwise at this time; believes that such a course of action would disrupt support for the anti-terrorism coalition among the Arab states; and instead urges the Prime Minister to use Britain's influence with Iraq to gain agreement that United Nations weapons inspections will resume.]
It expresses the deep concern of 107 hon. Members at the United States proposals to take military action against Iraq.

1051
So far, the Government have failed miserably to make a case for supporting the unilateral action proposed by President Bush. Will the Leader of the House assure us that the Prime Minister will not announce support for that action, either in this country or on a ranch in Texas, before the House has had time fully to debate the issues based on facts, not belief? May we have a debate on that subject before the Easter recess?
Mr. Cook: I cannot promise a debate on that issue before the recess, as I have just announced business for every day before the recess. [Interruption.1 As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst does not appear entirely persuaded of that, he might like to consider pulling the Opposition day to make room for such a debate.
Mr. Forth: Yes.
Mr. Cook: There we are—my hon. Friend has struck a colleague in the shape of the right hon. Gentleman.
If such action were to proceed, of course it should be debated in the House. In fairness to the Government, we demonstrated a willingness to listen to the House and gave the House an opportunity to debate the issues before and during the military action in Afghanistan, when we had five full debates on the threat of international terrorism. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that, should there be any proposal for action, the matter would of course have to be debated in the House. However, I remind her that, as the Prime Minister keeps saying, no decision has been taken and, as I said last Thursday, no decision may ever be taken.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's earlier reply, will he reflect for a moment on what his reaction would have been when he was a leading light on the Opposition Benches had he been told that the then hon. Member for Peterborough, as a Under-Secretary or a Minister, was too busy—or too important—to respond to a debate in the Chamber? The right hon. Gentleman said that that will not be a routine occurrence. May I tempt him to go a little further and say that it will not happen again?
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman is always tempting, but on this occasion I find it possible to resist. I welcome the fact that there are now more opportunities than there were in his time for hon. Members to vent constituency issues. That is why Westminster Hall was created, and it is fulfilling that role adequately and properly. It is right that, in response to that additional opportunity for Members, we should consider the acceptable convention in respect to replying to debates, particularly in the case of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, who has now responded to 34 Adjournment debates.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the apocryphal saying, the first will be last and the last will be first. I am normally last when it comes to oral Question Time, with the exception
1052
of two weeks ago when fortunately I was drawn first. That exceptional opportunity for me was quickly reversed when I discovered that my oral parliamentary question had been referred to another Department. I would not have objected to that one jot had not the Department—the Cabinet Office—answered a written parliamentary question on exactly the same subject only the week before. Seven other people had their questions transferred from the Cabinet Office to a range of other Departments that day, and I suspect I join them in feeling extremely miffed. Will my right hon. Friend bring his influence to bear on the various Ministers heading up our Departments, and tell them that it would be useful for Members seeking to question them about responsibilities if we knew precisely what they did? It would appear that certain activities are the responsibility of people in the Cabinet Office one day and of someone else the next day. That also applies to their colleagues at the Table Office.
Hon. Members: Send her a written answer!
Mr. Cook: I think I can handle this one myself, thank you very much.
If my hon. Friend advises me next time she is drawn first, I shall certainly intervene with the relevant Department and make sure that her question is treated with the dignity and seriousness that it requires. To respond to the issue of substance, I am well aware of the deep frustration to Members of finding that their questions have been transferred. Indeed, if my hon. Friend consults the submission that I have made on behalf of the Government to the Procedure Committee's inquiry into questions, she will find that one of the points that I highlight is the need to try to reduce the number of times when questions are transferred. I hope that we can work with the Table Office to ensure that questions are tabled to the appropriate Department in the first place. In the meantime, I shall certainly draw her remarks to the attention of the Cabinet Office.
Mr. Simon Burns: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister from the Lord Chancellor's Department to come to the House next week to make a statement about the selection of city status? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in the light of this morning's announcement, there is a growing view that the Government are engaged in a cynical political fix? Is he aware that, since 1997, six towns on the United Kingdom mainland have received city status, and that three of them did so six months before the last general election? Cynics might expect that those cities would all be Labour-held seats.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: They are.
Mr. Burns: They are; the hon. Lady is right. Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the Government have decided—rather cruelly, because the next election is not expected for at least three years—to fix it yet again today? The cities created on the UK mainland all have Labour MPs, and there is a growing fear that if a town that does not have a Labour MP, it will never become a city. That is demeaning to the honour of the process.
Mr. Cook: Of the six towns that have been declared cities today, two are in Northern Ireland and therefore do

1053
not have Labour MPs. Of course, I understand that, given the very large number of towns that now have Labour representation in this place, it is increasingly difficult to find other towns that might meet the criteria. I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman for having missed out on this occasion, but I ask him to consider carefully, before making any further remarks, whether what he has just said would be supported by the Conservative parties of Preston, Newport and Exeter, and I congratulate those new cities on their success.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a debate yesterday in Westminster Hall on the Government's energy review? It was a very good debate, but one and a half hours was not long enough, given the number of Members who wished to speak and the number of interests involved. Can we have a full debate on the matter in this Chamber? Energy is an important subject that affects every aspect of life in this country. While I am on my feet, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he responded to the opening points made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on the way in which he presented his points. These exchanges are now becoming the highlight of the week in the Chamber, given the inept performance of the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister's questions.
Mr. Cook: I am so glad that my hon. Friend got that last line in, as it explains the preceding passage.
Mr. Forth: You wrote it.
Mr. Cook: No, I could not have risen to such wit. It was entirely a product of my hon. Friend's contribution.
On the question of energy, I am conscious of the wide interest in the matter, which has been raised on a number of occasions at business questions. I will certainly reflect on what my hon. Friend has said as we consider future business, depending on the availability of time.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Last week, I put it to the Leader of the House that it would be quite wrong for the Government to announce an amnesty for terrorists on the run during our Easter recess. Uncharacteristically, he dodged the question, and did not state categorically that no such announcement would be made during the recess. It would be quite wrong to make such an announcement, and the feeling exists on both sides of the House that to give an amnesty to such people would wreck the Belfast agreement. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can now give us an undertaking on that, bearing in mind that the Prime Minister said—in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) yesterday at Question Time—that there would be no such announcement during the recess.
Mr. Cook: I understand the sensitivity of this issue. I am not aware of what plans there may be for any statement—or, indeed, whether a statement is to be made—but I shall certainly convey the right hon. Gentleman's points to the Northern Ireland Office.
Mr. John Smith: I welcome the Government's decision to offer a million euros towards
1054
the World Health Organisation's research into the relationship between deep-vein thrombosis and air travel. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the news today that that research programme is in disarray because of a massive funding shortage and the failure of leading nations such as Australia and America to support it? In the light of that, will he bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health as soon as possible, and reconsider the ability of this Government to carry out their own inquiry into the connection between deep-vein thrombosis and air travel, to stop any more British citizens dying unnecessarily?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the indefatigable way in which he has pursued this issue, and raised it on many occasions at business questions. It is, indeed, an issue of great gravity, and one that I have personally confronted lately through the experience of one of my European colleagues. I will pass on his observations to the Department of Health, but we need to recognise that, in terms of the statistical incidence of deep-vein thrombosis, the matter needs to be looked at on a global, rather than a purely national, basis. That is why a better way forward may be at international rather than domestic level. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, however, and I shall ensure that it is conveyed to the Minister.
John Barrett: May I add my weight to the call by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) for a full debate in the Chamber in Government time following the publication of the energy review, particularly in relation to the infrastructure decisions that will have to be made to further the development of alternative energy generation?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing his view. I remind the House that, at the moment, we have a report from the performance and innovation unit on energy, but we have yet to see the Government's considered response to it. A number of hon. Members have made the case for an extended debate on energy, however, and I am reflecting on that.
Sandra Osborne: My constituency has also lost out on its bid for city status, so I can assure the House that it is not only Conservative Members who have been disappointed. Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate soon on the future of National Air Traffic Services, given its recent financial difficulties and the continuing delay over the new Scottish centre in my constituency?
Mr. Cook: On that last point, my hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has made financial arrangements to ensure that the service can continue, and we shall obviously follow this matter with great care.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that there is no party political bias in the allocation of city status. I think that Chelmsford has left—this is becoming like a Shakespeare history play—so I shall omit any reference to that place. I encourage my hon. Friend to try again for that status, and I wish her well when she does so. I want to make a correction to my earlier list. I am

1055
told that Exeter has been given not city status, but lord mayoralty status. Stirling is, of course, the other town that has been given city status. I omitted it from the list in case Conservatives may have been upset by the observations of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), because it is so hard these days to find the Conservative party in Scotland.
Mr. Roger Gale: Given that the appointment of the chairman of the governors of the BBC has now become a new Labour sinecure, at least for the moment—and working on the naive assumption that the present appointee, Mr. Gavyn Davies, still has the confidence of the Government, in spite of his remarks at the Westminster media forum yesterday—will the Leader of the House find time for a debate in the main Chamber in Government time on the future funding, responsibilities and duties of the BBC, prior to the publication of the eagerly awaited communications Bill?
Mr. Cook: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I know that he takes a close interest in these matters. I will happily add his request to the long list of such requests that is before me, but I remind him that we shall soon have an opportunity to examine the draft communications Bill. He and others will have plenty of chances to make their points about the future of BBC funding then.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Preston, which receives city status today? In this jubilee year, that is a great honour for 100,000 proud Prestonians—100,000 people displaying ethnic and religious diversity—and for a town with world-beating industries and a world-beating university that is now the eighth largest in the country. Preston has never been prouder than it is today.
Mr. Cook: I am delighted that today's announcement pleased at least one Member, and I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Preston. Three criteria were required for success in the bid for city status; Preston fully met the third, which was a forward-looking attitude.
Mr. Gregory Barker: Many of my constituents find it weird that at a time when the national health service is in crisis and many of them wait 16 weeks for cancer treatment, when the police service is in turmoil, and when transport is in chaos and deteriorating, the Leader of the House has cleared the decks in order to focus on foxhunting.
Leaving aside that perverse priority, however, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the House is to debate foxhunting on Monday, a day that had long been reserved for a reception given by Her Majesty the Queen at Buckingham palace to celebrate her golden jubilee, to which I believe all Members had been invited? Why could the debate not have taken place today, on Wednesday, or on any other day? Was this a cock-up? Was it typical of the incompetence that we have come to expect of this Government? Or was it contempt for Her Majesty the Queen—contempt that the Government routinely show for the Chamber?
Mr. Cook: In my other role as President of the Council, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would show no
1056
contempt for Her Majesty. I have the greatest respect for the enormous job she does for the country, which I had an opportunity to admire at first hand when I was Foreign Secretary. As for the question of Monday's debate, a reception at the palace had indeed been organised. The decision not to proceed with it was made by the palace, but I understand that the palace intends to rearrange it on another date.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgently needed debate on channel tunnel security? As he will know, the storm-trooping activities of traffickers and illegal immigrants are causing havoc in Frethun, and bringing English Welsh and Scottish Railway freight services to a standstill. The destruction is threatening lives, jobs and trade.
Mr. Cook: I am aware of the seriousness of the situation. We have repeatedly pressed the French authorities to ensure that there is adequate security at Sangatte and at the rail freight terminal. The measures we have taken on this side of the channel have been quite successful in reducing the number of illegal entries, which has fallen by a quarter in the past year, and the number of people arriving in Britain with improper paperwork, which has fallen by three quarters. Despite that progress, however, I share my hon. Friend's concern about the interruption to the service—which I use frequently myself—and we will continue to press the French authorities to produce an outcome that will allow the service to recommence.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: In Westminster Hall on Tuesday, we had an excellent debate about the future of Consignia. Nine Back Benchers were able to contribute, although had time permitted—it was only a 90-minute debate—at least as many again could have done so. May I ask again whether a subject of such importance could be given some time on the Floor of the House, where it properly belongs? Does not fairness demand that Conservative Members, especially the large number with rural constituencies, should be allowed to place on record why they do not oppose measures that will have a dire impact on rural communities?
Mr. Cook: It is not for me to speak to Conservative Members, but no doubt they heard what the hon. Gentleman said and will seek to rectify the omission before the hour is up. As for the question of our offering them, and the hon. Gentleman, the opportunity of a full debate on Consignia, I fully understand the strength of feeling in the House. Indeed, it was made clear in business questions immediately after the Postcomm statement. Fortunately for the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is present. I am sure we will both reflect on what he said, and consider when it might be appropriate to bring the matter to the House.
Mr. Andrew Love: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read early-day motion 877, on debt and credit lending? It states
[That this House is concerned that whilst consumer debt reaches record levels (£6.8 billion new debt in December according to the Bank of England), around three and a half million adults do not have access to any

1057
sort of bank account and seven million have no current account; expresses deep concern that over three million people are reliant on loans at high cost from licensed moneylenders; and urges the Government to act to tackle this injustice as part of a wider anti-debt strategy, within the context of the Government's antipoverty strategy.]
The motion deals with financial exclusion. As it says, 3.5 million people have no bank account and 7 million have no current account. For many of those people, the only option is paying very high interest rates on loans. Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate so we can discuss how best to deal with the problem of extortionate lending within the wider framework of the Government's anti-poverty strategy?
Mr. Cook: That is a subject of deep concern in many inner-city areas, and many of the most deprived parts of the country. I know from my experience in Scotland how high interest rates can be for vulnerable people. It is one of the great ironies that the poorest people often end up paying the highest rates.
I commend my hon. Friend on his early-day motion, and particularly on his recognition of the role that can be played by the Post Office, which is universally available and will soon be able to provide a universal banking service. We will continue to seek imaginative ways of addressing the problem he has raised.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I believe the right hon. Gentleman underestimates the damage caused to the whole United Kingdom by the closure of the channel tunnel to rail freight. Is he aware of the Government's target of 80 per cent. for freight travelling by rail, and is he aware that that target now cannot be met within the 10-year transport plan? Is he aware that half a million pounds is being lost each day by companies such as EWS and Potters of Melmerby in the Vale of York? Will he invite the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to make a statement here on precisely what the Government are doing? There is now no freight transport through the channel tunnel, which means that all freight is travelling by road. That is unacceptable.
Mr. Cook: If I appeared not to grasp the gravity of the situation I am justly rebuked by the hon. Lady, but I told my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) that I fully understood the severity of the situation and its impact not just on Dover but on the country generally. I remind the hon. Lady that the issue at the heart of the problem is security at the freight terminal on the Calais side of the tunnel. We have no direct responsibility and no direct ability to intervene, but we will continue to press the French authorities which are responsible to provide adequate security so that the service can recommence.
Bob Spink: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the massive and disastrous rise in council tax throughout the country? It is just another Labour stealth tax, and one that hits the most vulnerable the hardest. Perhaps such a debate would allow us to explore the reasons why Labour-controlled Castle Point borough council has increased council tax on a
1058
band D house to more than £1,000, while the neighbouring Conservative-controlled Southend unitary authority charges £300 a year less.
Mr. Cook: I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to congratulate the Government on the massive rise in Government grants to local authorities. Since 1997 the amount has increased by 20 per cent., whereas during the previous five years under the Conservatives it rose by only 1 per cent. Given the enormous difference between the way in which the two Governments have funded local authorities, I think a period of silence from the hon. Gentleman would be welcome.
Dr. John Pugh: Can the Leader of the House look closely at the timetable set for the Government's proposals on regional government? The White Paper has not been published and only today we learn that the CBI in the north-west is withdrawing from participation in the north-west regional assembly because it believes that it is wasting its time. Is not the initiative in danger of floundering and should not the Government be giving some clear direction?
Mr. Cook: The Government have given clear direction and our commitment to produce a White Paper will be fulfilled. I strongly urge all those involved in discussions about regional assemblies and regional government to remain committed to them so that their regions benefit when the White Paper spells out the way forward.
Mr. James Clappison: The implication of today's comments by the Leader of the House is that the Government will arrange for Whips to reply to Adjournment debates and that a limit could be set on the number of debates to which Ministers reply. Given that, can he explain how we can expect the House to be held in greater esteem when Ministers themselves do not hold it in sufficient esteem to come here to reply to debates? How can we expect members of the public to hold MPs in greater esteem when MPs have been deprived of the opportunity of putting their points across to Ministers in Adjournment debates? That is a significant and bad development. Can the Leader of the House put his hand on his heart and say that if our roles were reversed, he would accept without demur a Whip replying to an Adjournment debate which he had initiated?
Mr. Cook: I would point out that the hon. Member who obtained and spoke in the debate, who is one of my colleagues, has made no complaint. The only complaints have come from the Conservatives. I did not suggest that the practice should be a general rule or generally applied; nor do I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, can be fairly accused of not taking his role in the House seriously. He has probably responded to more than double the number of debates than any other Minister bar one. Westminster Hall has allowed us to provide hon. Members with a much greater opportunity to raise issues. In those circumstances, we should recognise that occasionally—not as a general rule—it may be appropriate for a Whip, who is a member of the Government, to answer on behalf of a Minister.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Leader of the House tell the House which candidates for city status have been successful in Northern Ireland?

1059
In addition, according to the Order Paper, my ten-minute Bill—Trespassers on Land (Liability for Damage and Eviction) Bill—will be introduced on Tuesday 26 March. It is an important measure that will address the problem of damage caused by travellers who arrive in communities and cause damage to their neighbours' property, which is a cause for concern in Surrey. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that I will still have an opportunity to introduce that Bill even though the business for that day has changed slightly?
Mr. Cook: I do not anticipate a problem with the ten-minute Bill proceeding on Tuesday 26 March. We will have Question Time as normal. I guarantee that the normal procedures for that day will stand, if only because it is Health Question Time and I will insist that we have it then.
On Northern Ireland, the two towns that have been successful in applying for city status are Lisburn and Newry.
Dr. Evan Harris: May I remind the Leader of the House of his Government's manifesto commitment of 1997 to ban tobacco advertising? Smoking costs at least 120,000 lives, and a ban on advertising would save thousands of those. Is he aware that the private Member's Bill promoted by my colleague, Lord Clement-Jones, is likely to receive its Third Reading and clear the House of Lords tomorrow? If that is the case, and given that an almost identical Government Bill went through this House before running out of time in the Lords in the previous Parliament, will the Government give the Bill time? Have they any excuse not to give such an important measure Government time to finish its passage and provide the public health initiative that the country so desperately needs?
Mr. Cook: I am well aware that the Bill has its final stage tomorrow. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are following the debate with close interest and will reflect on our position in the light of that.

Women and Equality
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
3.4 pm
The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I am delighted that we are having this debate. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for providing us with the time, and to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, who had the courtesy to tell me that unfortunately she cannot join us.
International women's day was on Friday—hopefully, next year we will have this debate a little closer to it—and I had the enormous pleasure of attending the first major conference in my city of Leicester to bring together hundreds of women aged between 15 and 85 from different backgrounds and Leicester's diverse communities. We heard, as one always does at such events, stories of the extraordinary things that women are doing in their lives.
Freda Hussain was appointed some years ago as the principal of one of Leicester's large community colleges. She was the first Asian woman principal in Leicester and possibly the first Asian principal. She said that on the day of the announcement of her appointment she was approached by a boy who said, "You don't look like a headmaster, miss", and by a group of girls, one of whom said, "Thank you, miss. Now we've got someone to look up to."
We heard from Ann, an extraordinary woman in her 40s, who told us how she had gone through all her school years believing that she was thick because the teachers had told her so and had certainly made her feel like it. She got no qualifications and never had much of a job or, indeed, much of a life. Eventually, it was discovered that, like many people, she was dyslexic and it had not been diagnosed all those years ago when she was in school. She overcame that problem and gained access qualifications. She studied law and got a first-class degree. She then got a good job. Tragically, after all that, her employer could not give her the support that she needed to cope with her disability—she still cannot spell—in order to fulfil the demands of the job. I am afraid that she is unemployed again, although I have no doubt that with her determination she will soon be back in work.
We heard from Karen Wildman, a Leicester woman, who started as a receptionist at one of Leicester's engineering companies and who rose to become the managing director of that firm. She is now an executive member of the board of the parent company. She has achieved extraordinary success in business, but some of the men in grey suits that she typically meets still take her for a secretary and talk to her male colleagues instead. I suspect that many of my hon. Friends—or should I say hon. sisters—have experienced that.
We also heard from community leaders. Rita Patel, who founded Belgrave Behano, is now building a multi-million pound community centre in inner-city Leicester, and Vera Smith is an amazing, battling pensioner who fought to save a community centre in one of the outer-city impoverished council estates that I represent. I was delighted to join her the clay after the conference to open a centre that had been refurbished as a result of funding provided by our neighbourhood renewal programme, but

1061
administered by resident leadership. Those were just a few of the women's voices that all of us hear in our constituencies and on whose behalf we have the privilege to speak in the House.
Listening to women at last week's conference reminded me of the question posed by Sigmund Freud nearly 100 years ago. He asked, "What do women really want?" Apparently, it was a puzzle to the father of psychoanalysis, but it is no puzzle to hon. Members in the House today. We all want the chance to use our abilities, to find the strength and potential within us, as Ann did, whatever that potential is. We want to make a contribution at work and in the wider community; we want to earn a living and to enjoy a secure retirement. However, we also want the blessing of loving relationships with our friends and family and the chance to care for other people—our children, our parents as they grow older, and others who need us. We want to be able to balance home and work and the rest of our lives. We want our homes, streets and communities to be safe for ourselves and our children—safe from the scourge of domestic and public violence. We want good health and a good health service, good schools and all those other vital services.

Of course women's aspirations are influenced by different cultural and religious traditions, social class and our parents' experience, but in essence they do not vary or change very much. What has changed is the condition of women's lives, and that has changed radically in recent decades.
I grew up in the 1950s, at a time when there was a very clear division of labour between men and women. The man worked full-time while the woman, after marriage, stayed at home full-time to care for the children, and there were powerful social and legal sanctions against divorce and illegitimacy. Not everyone lived in that way; there has always been a significant number of working-class women, in particular, who earned a living for their family. However, it is fair to say that that traditional two-parent, one male breadwinner family model was society's ideal. It underpinned the way in which employers organised work and occupational pensions; it underpinned the way in which Government organised the national insurance and welfare systems and the rest of public policy.
Just to describe that world of the 1950s is to see how far we have travelled since then. The huge social changes that we are living through were not imposed by any Government or dictated by some wicked feminist plot—they were created by women themselves, making different choices and demanding different opportunities in their lives.
Those changes are continuing. Today I have published new survey figures showing a radical change in the levels of women's employment over the past decade. Over the past 10 years, men's employment rates have stayed relatively constant, but those of women, particularly mothers, have grown rapidly. We have seen a growth rate in employment of nearly 10 per cent. for all women between 1991 and 2001, compared with an increase of only 4 per cent. for men. Most strikingly, the employment rate of women whose youngest child is under five has grown by a third over the same period. That represents the biggest increase in the rate of women's employment in our country since the wartime period. Britain now has one of the highest rates of women's employment in the European Union and across the industrialised world.
1062
It is not the Government's job to tell women, or men, how to lead their life. Our job is to support and enable people to lead the fulfilling life that they want for themselves and their family. We can do that only if we recognise and understand these enormous changes. We must recognise that, despite the enormous increase in the wealth of our country, it is in many ways much tougher to bring up children today than it was when I and many other hon. Members were growing up. It is our job as a Government to support families—all families—in their double responsibility of earning a living and caring for children and other family members. That means that the Government have to support women, and men, in the choices that they want to make.
We will have failed if women still have to go back to work too soon after having a baby because they cannot afford to stay at home any longer. We will have failed if women have to go on working long and inconvenient hours that they believe are damaging to their families and themselves because shorter working hours are simply not available.
I should perhaps declare an interest, as I am the mother of two teenage children. Along with many hon. Members, I know just how difficult it is balancing commitments to our constituents, the House, our families and, in my case, in my role as a Minister. We have the great good fortune to do work that we love and have chosen, and to be well paid for it. How much harder is it for women such as the constituent to whom I was talking recently, who has to juggle, as she put it, not only work and family but her marriage? She is at home during the day caring for young children while her husband is at work. Three nights a week she works late shifts, getting no sleep at all, to bring in extra money while her husband is at home caring for the children.
We will have failed if women are staying at home when they do not want to because they cannot find good quality, affordable child care or a job with the hours that they need or because, as older women who have brought up their children and are ready to embark on the next phase of their life, they come up against employer prejudice against older people. Perhaps I should declare another interest, as I am 53.
When I say that "we" have to do these things, I do not simply mean the Government. I mean employers, in the public and private sectors. I welcome the fact, as I am sure the whole House does, that more and more businesses and public service organisations recognise that if they are to deliver the services that their clients and customers want and if they are to get and keep the good, skilled people they need, they have to pay attention to the needs and abilities of all the potential talent pool, not just half of it. The new figures that I have just given and the increase in women returning to work after having children in many ways represent an improvement, as women have told us, in the conditions available in the workplace.
Unfortunately, not all employers have got there yet. I recently met Michelle Chew, a former police constable with more than 12 years' experience in specialist child protection work. She is also a lone mother who had, at the time the problem arose, two children under five. Not surprisingly, WPC Chew wanted hours that worked for her family as well as the police force. For some time, that is what she had. However, she was then faced with the demand that she move to full-time work on variable shifts that would have destroyed her child care arrangements.

1063

Her application to remain in her existing post or move to another part-time post with family-friendly shifts was twice turned down without any serious consideration. What was the result? The police force lost an immensely experienced and valuable officer in a specialist area where it is not always easy to recruit. It also lost the employment tribunal case that Michelle Chew brought against them, reinforcing the fact that there is a need for reform and change as well as investment in the police service and our other great public services.
For years, the work-family balance has been a problem for women, while men have taken it for granted. Indeed, when a man in a top job in business or politics says that he wants to spend more time with his family, most people think that there must be something wrong with him. That, too, is changing; more and more men want to spend time with their family, striking a better balance between work and family. I welcome the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House who understand, from their experience, that changing approach among men.
The Government are already doing a great deal to support women and families in making the choices that will suit them. We have introduced full-time rights for part-time workers, time off for people to deal with family emergencies, the right to parental leave while children are young, and higher maternity pay, which will come into effect from April next year. At the same time, we have introduced longer maternity leave, totalling up to one year off. Furthermore, for the first time ever, there is two weeks' paid paternity leave, to underline our recognition of the crucial role that fathers play in their children's lives.
Mr. Hugo Swire indicated assent.
Ms Hewitt: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has an interest in the subject that he would like to declare, in which case I readily congratulate him.
In the Employment Bill, we are also putting in place new legal standards for family-friendly working, to make it much easier for fathers and mothers with children under the age of six, or with older children who have disabilities, and to ensure that every workplace and manager has to consider how to reorganise work to suit their employees as well as their business.
Much has been done to ensure that parents and families have the time that they need. Much has also been done to ensure that they have the money they need: the record increases in child benefit; the working families tax credit, which benefits one and a third million families; the national minimum wage, which has given a pay rise to about 1 million women and 500,000 men: the sure start maternity grant, which is also to be introduced in April 2003 for families on lower incomes and will deliver an increase in the maternity grant to £500, which is five times the level that we inherited in 1997; and, crucially, for older women the increases in pensions and the introduction of the minimum income guarantee. As I well remember from my first job with Age Concern, women are the majority of pensioners and, above all, the majority of pensioners living in poverty. They live longer, they have much less chance of a decent occupational pension and they have fewer savings on which to rely.
1064
We have provided not only time and money but the services that women and families need. I am particularly proud of our Government's achievements in child care, and pay tribute to the work of the Minister for Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who was responsible for child care issues in our first term, and to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my noble Friend Baroness Ashton of Upholland, who has taken over that responsibility. We have already created new child care places for more than 750,000 children. By March 2004, we will have places for about 1 million extra children.
Much has been done, but because we listen to and represent women in our constituencies and our Government listen to women throughout the country, we all know how much more remains to be done, for instance, on the pay gap. When I was campaigning on equal pay and sex discrimination nearly 30 years ago, that gap was 37 per cent. Now, it is down to 18 per cent., but it is still far too high. The penalty paid by women in their lifetimes in forgone earnings is enormous. Research carried out by our women and equality unit found a staggering difference between the lifetime earnings of a woman with medium-level skills and two children and those of a man of similar experience. The gap in her earnings compared with his was about £380,000—a gender gap of £240,000 and a motherhood gap of a further £140,000.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office is doing so much to take forward the pioneering work of Baroness Castle, which will now be recognised again with the introduction shortly of the new Castle awards for employers who are making strides to close that pay gap. I certainly do not want my daughter to be campaigning on that issue in another 20 or 30 years.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I thoroughly support all that the Secretary of State has just said about equal pay. Does she agree that that is a cross-party issue and that all parties in the House want women to be treated equally as regards pay? Indeed, a Conservative Government introduced the Equal Pay Act in 1983.
Ms Hewitt: I was entirely with the hon. Lady until her last remark, as the Equal Pay Act was introduced by Baroness Castle in 1970 at the end of a Labour Government and was brought into effect in 1975 under the then Labour Government. However, I strongly welcome the hon. Lady's support for the action that we are taking to strengthen equal pay.
One reason why we have already delivered a great deal and will go on to deliver a great deal more—there is much more to be done—is that we have done more than any previous Government to engage women in policy making. If public policy is to deliver for all our people, policy making must be done by women as well as men. This matter concerns not simply individual women or the fate of political parties; it directly concerns the health of our democracy and the legitimacy of our political institutions.
In my constituency and throughout the country, I have been struck by the number of women who are engaged in neighbourhood and community leadership in, for example, tenants associations, community groups, the voluntary sector and faith organisations. As my hon. Friend the

1065
Minister for Lifelong Learning said in an excellent article this morning, it is wrong to think that women are disengaged from politics. They are not.
Sandra Gidley: I note with interest what you said about women being at the heart of policy making—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady must sit down when I am on my feet and she must use the right parliamentary language. She should address the Minister in the third person as the right hon. Lady.
Sandra Gidley: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Will the right hon. Lady give us an update on the mainstreaming commitment that was announced early in the last Parliament?
Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question because it is important. We have combined the appointment of the two Ministers for women and the establishment of the women's unit, now the women and equality unit, with moves to ensure that in every Department real attention is paid to the different lives, circumstances and needs of women and men, and that is working well. Gender analysis is thus taken seriously in policy making in every Department. The fact that we have so many women Ministers helps to ensure that that actually happens.
To return to the wider issue, women throughout the country are engaged locally in politics with a small "p"—in their own neighbourhoods and communities—but too many of them are disengaged from party politics, politics with a big "p", whether in the town hall or Whitehall. It is not surprising that that should be so. Too often when women look at their local council, or, in the past, at this House, or when they look at who is running big business, they see white men in charge, with some honourable exceptions. Women's representation as well as representation from our minority ethnic communities, for both men and women, is not a matter of political correctness; it is about the health of our democracy and the success of our economy.
Our Government and the Labour party are doing their bit. I was proud, as were many of my hon. Friends who are present today, to be part of that historic intake in 1997 when more women Members were elected than ever before. I hope to be around long enough, but not too long, for that record to be broken and for us to be part of it.
Sandra Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we took a backward step at the last general election, especially as regards the representation of women from Scotland in this House?
Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Like her and many of my hon. Friends, I am disappointed that slightly fewer women were elected to our Labour Benches in last year's election than in 1997, but I have no doubt that action will be taken to redress that imbalance over the years to come.
Linda Perham: Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that not only the Labour party but other parties will take advantage of the Sex
1066
Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, which we introduced, to increase the number of women representatives of all parties in this place?
Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I was just about to refer to that measure—I think it should have been called the women's representation Act—which had all-party support. I am sure that we shall hear from the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) about how the Conservative party intends to use its provisions. The Act will enable any political party to take whatever positive action it considers appropriate to redress the imbalance that exists even now in the representation of women and men in this place.
Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that next week the Welsh Labour party conference in Llandudno will vote on a proposal for all-women shortlists for the Welsh Assembly elections? Does she agree that that is a direct result of the legislation introduced by the Government and a first step towards enacting it?
Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with the points made by my hon. Friend. I think that the Welsh Labour party is the first political party body to take advantage of the new law that we introduced.
I am proud to be one of the seven women in the Cabinet—more than ever before in our history. I am proud to be part of a Government where one in three Ministers are women. We are doing significantly better than big business. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has done pioneering work on that subject. When we consider the FTSE 100, we find that for each woman on a board there are 17 men—not so much "Sex in the City" as sexism in the City.
Joan Ryan: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that before 1997 more Members were named John than were female. Currently, only one in eight Members of Parliament are women. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only effective mechanisms to address that are quotas and the women's representation legislation?
Ms Hewitt: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend that there are not yet enough women in this place—nor are there enough women or men from our minority ethnic communities. The new law is a real step forward and will allow each political party to make its own decisions about the form of positive action that it wants to use—not to advance the career opportunities of women who are interested in politics but to ensure that our political institutions really reflect and represent all our communities and the whole of our country. That is essential if we are to deal with the problem of political disengagement at the party political or parliamentary level.
We must all address the even larger problem of under-representation on local councils. There are honourable exceptions, but far too often our local councils are run or dominated by male councillors. The Government are already addressing that in the appropriate forums.
Mr. Swire: The right hon. Lady may be right about women's representation on councils. However, later in the

1067
debate, I hope to allude to the fact that the leader of the Conservative group on Devon county council is a lady—Christine Channon—who has been active in local politics for a long time. Furthermore, East Devon district council—one of the flagship councils of the land—is also controlled by the Conservatives and led by Sara Randall-Johnson who is also—as her name might suggest—a woman.
Ms Hewitt: I am delighted to hear about both those women council leaders, whom I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting. As I said, there are many outstanding exceptions to the general pattern that I was describing. Indeed, one of our many Ministers is my noble Friend Baroness Hollis, an excellent and experienced Minister, who was an extremely distinguished leader of Norwich city council for many, many years.
There are many exceptions to the rule, but the general pattern remains that across local councils as a whole the representation of women is even lower—much lower—than it is in our Chamber.
Miss Anne Begg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the exceptions are so outstanding because in order for women to reach that level they must themselves be outstanding? There are many women languishing in society who are not quite as outstanding but who could easily contribute to the political process.
Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She makes a central point: if we do not effectively extend opportunities for women—whether in business, public service, government or a range of political and other public institutions—not only will individual women miss out, but society will miss out on the contribution of talent, skills and experience of women whose abilities are not being properly recognised.
As we move towards next year's local council elections, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office and I will be leading a drive in the Labour party to ensure that there is an increase in the number of women, drawing especially on the women to whom I was referring—those who are so active in their local communities but who sometimes, unfortunately, see the local council as a hindrance rather than a help. We need to change that and one way of doing so is to get those women into the council making decisions.
Helen Jackson: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for my late arrival in the Chamber. I have come straight from the women's conference of the Trades Union Congress, where several hundred women gave details of their experience of their working environment and their working lives. We need that experience in this place. Few of those women have ever stood for Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that they are the very people who should be enabled, through training and legislation, to have greater opportunities to serve on local councils and in this place?
Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am delighted that she was able to attend the TUC women's conference—as my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office did this morning. We shall do our part as
1068
a political party to recruit women with that extraordinary range of experience to a variety of more formal political activity—in councils and in this place.
The Government are also playing their part. My hon. Friend and I—with my noble Friend Baroness Morgan, when she had ministerial responsibility for women and equality—initiated a programme of seminars and meetings throughout the country to encourage women from a range of backgrounds, regardless of political opinion, to put themselves forward for public appointments. That will allow us to tap into those women's experience and achieve our target of 50 per cent.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the contribution that women working in science, engineering and technology have made to the quality of all our lives, and to reflect on the difficulties that those disciplines have in recruiting more women, who could only bring greater benefit to our economy if they were suitably used.
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend has enormous expertise and is making an outstanding contribution on the issue. I recently had the pleasure of meeting the Daphne Jackson Trust, which, as she will know, has been pioneering support for women with scientific degrees and other qualifications who want to return to work. There is much more that we can and should do, which is why I recently asked Baroness Susan Greenfield to report to me on precisely how we can get more women into science—both young women and those returning to work. That again underlines the point that we will never overcome our skills shortages if business and science recruit from only half the population.
Mr. Mark Francois: A large number of cabinet portfolio holders on Essex county council are women: Iris Pummell runs the schools; Elizabeth Hart runs lifelong learning and early years; Tracey Chapman runs environment; and Mavis Webster is deputy for social services. Those are all women who have achieved that prominence entirely on their own merit. Essex county council is Conservative-controlled and women are doing very well on it. I cannot finish without mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who won a seat from the Labour party entirely on merit, and who was also a shadow cabinet member of Essex county council.
Ms Hewitt: I am delighted to hear hon. Gentlemen praising their female Conservative colleagues. It is true that my party has not yet produced a woman Prime Minister, although we have certainly had outstanding women Cabinet members. Since the hon. Gentleman decided to introduce a bit of controversy to the debate, it is also fair to say that, despite the fact that the Conservative party and Government were headed for so many years by a woman of extraordinary and outstanding abilities, women in our country are doing far better under our Labour Government and our Prime Minister.
Mrs. Laing: It is very good to have some support on this side from gentlemen colleagues. I see that the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) has just resumed his

1069
place, thereby doubling the number of gentlemen on the Labour Benches. It is sad that there is so little support there.
Does the Minister agree that, to encourage more women to come into the House and into politics generally, those of us who are already involved have to be seen to be serious in the undertaking of our duties, and not to trivialise the matter of women's employment rights, mothers' rights and so on, and that there is a danger that, if there are continual press reports about breastfeeding in the Chamber, the outside world will find it hard to take us seriously? Should not we be discussing—as she has done this afternoon—the many millions of women out there who need support?
Ms Hewitt: I have been addressing many of the very serious issues that face women throughout our country, but breastfeeding is also a serious issue to do with the health of our children.
Our Government are working for women and listening to them every day, but it is good to have one day of the year when we debate women's interests and concerns specifically, and I look forward with keen anticipation to hearing further contributions to this debate.
3.45 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: We are here to celebrate international women's day, and it is right to begin by paying tribute to all the organisations that have worked hard to improve the lot of women in society. I listened attentively to the Minister, who seemed to give the impression that all was rosy in the garden and that the Government could take the credit for all the achievements, but it is right to record our thanks to all the organisations who work so hard on our behalf.
In some ways, I find it absolutely astonishing that it is necessary for us to debate the subject of women and equality more than 20 years after the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The fact that we have to do so takes us far beyond any party political argument and goes to the very nature of British culture. Anyone who might dispute the need for this debate should take account of some very disturbing facts.
Male graduates aged between 20 and 24—that is largely before family responsibilities come along—in full-time employment earn more than their female counterparts even when they have achieved the same class of degree, studied the same subject and work in the same occupations and industries. The pay gap widens as they get older. There is a 25 per cent. pay gap by the time that they get to their late 30s.
Apart from the obvious lack of justice, that has knock-on effects. Women who have left employment constitute the poorest group of people in the country—the most dependent on state benefits. That is partly due to the fact that women take career breaks to have families, during which time they cannot contribute to a pension scheme. Moreover, many of the schemes are geared to the male model of unbroken service from first job to retirement. This is a wake-up call to all those designing new pension products: they must take account of the typical lifetime working model for women.
That is quantifiable. The average net entitlement to a pension is £67.68 per week, but that obscures the contrast in that the male average is £82 per week and the female
1070
average £59.29. Recently retired males have higher pension entitlements than females in the same position, because of their more complete contribution record and, on average, higher earned income.
The Fawcett Society, whose work I praise unreservedly, has established that only one in five women have set aside enough provision for their retirement. We should be shouting that from the rooftops, while there is still time for younger women to prepare. The problem is that the old reliance on a husband's earnings to provide enough for a couple to live on in old age has been blown apart by the rising divorce rate and incidence of family breakdown.
Women's capacity to prepare for a dignified retirement is not helped by the fact that many of the jobs open to women are part-time and poorly paid, leaving them little leeway to set aside savings for later life. The pay gap between the genders has remained largely unchanged for part-time women since the late 1970s: a staggering 41 per cent. Those are figures provided by the Equal Opportunities Commission. Inequalities exist even in well-established, female-dominated public sector professions such as nursing. Men are 80 per cent. more likely to be in the top nursing grade H than their female counterparts. Last year, 77 per cent. of all hospital consultants were men, and only 6 per cent. of consultant surgeons were women. I know only one female consultant who has managed to negotiate part-time working, but invariably her male colleagues unhelpfully arrange administration meetings on her day off.
The Employment Bill, which is currently going through the Lords, tries to address some areas of inequality, but we want to alert the Government to some health warnings. In February, women bosses at the Institute of Directors expressed concern about increasing employment rights for women and the possibly damaging effects of the Bill on their employability. Small businesses in particular are already groaning under the burden of red tape introduced by the Government. They favour voluntary arrangements between employers and their staff, not more legislation. Maternity leave legislation can be difficult to manage, especially for small companies. Employers currently have to keep a woman's job open when she is on maternity leave, but the woman has no obligation to return. Many women choose not to do so, and for small businesses that can lead to difficulties.
The evidence is that many women decide not to return to work because of the lack of affordable child care. The Government should concentrate their resources on that problem. What is being done to encourage employers to increase child care provision without placing extra burdens on employers? The depletion in the number of child minders, who feel that they are being pushed out by the Government's preference for institutional early-years education, has been a serious blow to working women, who need the flexible, domestic-based service that child minders can provide and which institutions find difficult to match.
Sandra Osborne: Is the hon. Lady aware that under successive Conservative Governments people could not get child care for love nor money?
Mrs. Spelman: I am not here for historical debate; I was not a Member of Parliament under a Conservative Government. We are talking about women and equality

1071
today, and the Minister set out for the House the good things that, in her view, the Government have done. I urge the Minister to focus the Government's attention on things that need to be done; many working women and many child minders have beaten a path to my door over the reduction in the number of child minders.
Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—[Laughter.] I am sorry, I am stuck in a rut; in this place, it is usually one of them. I accept the hon. Lady's desire to make things better, but it is difficult to accept her lack of historical awareness. Under the Conservative Government, there was no financial help for women seeking child care, whether from a child minder or an institution. The working families tax credit, which has a child care element, is increasing the number of child minders in my constituency. In addition, the child care strategy is making more places available.
I like the tone of this debate, which suggests that both Government and Opposition could do better. However, we have to accept the record of the past.
Mrs. Spelman: One must be careful with the expression about who wears the trousers, but I should like to make it clear for the record that I am an hon. Lady.
Labour Members have been in power for five years, so they must accept that they have a bit of history. It is not true that there was no help with child care under the Conservative Government; there was help with out-of-school child care. I made a specific point about the demise of child minders. The Minister made an important point about changes in British society concerning women and the workplace. As she said, in the 1950s the typical model involved a delineation of roles; women wanted to stay at home much more and raise their families. Now, there is a rise in the number of women, increasingly with under-fives, wanting to go to work. There is therefore a new demand for the appropriate care of children under school age, which we must meet from the supply of child care services. I certainly want to draw to the attention of the Government the loss of child minders.
The Federation of Small Businesses gave a clear verdict on the Employment Bill, which it described as hefty and a raft of employment legislation too far. Its employment spokesman, Bill Knox, said:
"This Employment Bill has got to be the final word … our members broadly support family friendly policies but there is no doubt that parental leave is generous to employees and hard on employers"
—in small businesses—
"which can only harm productivity."
At the very least, the federation wants the Government to deliver on promises to limit the bureaucracy involved in administering those policies. That is important for small businesses; while they welcome family-friendly policies, the burden of administering them is sometimes the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Similar misgivings apply to the European Union's equal treatment directive. In a speech to European Standing Committee B in February, I made a plea for greater clarity and simplicity in the language used to describe proposed legislation in the directive. At the moment, employers may be put off employing women
1072
because of the obscurity and complication of legislation surrounding their employment. There is also the question of the cost of regulations in the directive.
Nearer to home, we need more women in Parliament; we supported the change in the Sex Discrimination Act to allow political parties to take positive action to get more women into all areas of public life. I should like to place on the record the fact that our party is doing its bit; we are going to change our selection procedures in the light of that legislative change. For the sake of Parliament's standing in the eyes of the public, we must be seen to be working in ways that do not deter half the population from taking part. I wish to correct a misconception and, in so doing, may cast doubt on the question of paternity leave, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). It is generally unknown in the wider population that there is no maternity leave for women Members of Parliament; leave is discretionary and must be negotiated with the Whips. It is interesting to observe that Members of Parliament have no right to maternity leave.
Joan Ryan: Does the hon. Lady support the extension of paid maternity leave in the Employment Bill from 18 to 26 weeks? I agree that child care is terribly important, and welcome the national child care strategy—the first one we have ever had—and the expansion of child care places. However, paid maternity leave over a reasonable period is vital, and women want it. I was unsure whether the hon. Lady supported that or not.
Mrs. Spelman: I was giving the Government a health warning about the change. Under the changes to maternity leave, after only six months' employment employees become entitled to a full year's maternity leave, at the end of which they can still choose not to return. Small businesses faced with a choice of candidates for a position may start to have misgivings about employing a woman of childbearing age. I was warning the Government about the impact that the change may have on women's employability. We must balance the needs of employers and employees; without doubt, the needs of small businesses are different from those of large corporations.
My own experience is that once one has got into Parliament, being a woman is no bar to getting on; if anything, male colleagues respect one more because they know the hurdles that have had to be overcome to get into Parliament. Women make up more than half the population, but only 18 per cent. of our MPs are female, which is lower than in Turkmenistan, Vietnam, Rwanda and Namibia and an indictment of the mother of Parliaments. We could do more by mentoring candidates and providing role models to prove that it is possible to become an MP. Parliament is making some progress on more family-friendly working practices. The example of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), comes to mind; she demonstrated that ministerial office and maternity can be combined.
On thinking about the title of this debate, I had an inkling that I would be disappointed in one respect, and I am afraid that my misgivings have been borne out. I suspected that the debate would focus on improved rights for women in the developed world, but they pale in comparison with inequality between the sexes in the developing world. We should remember that our debate is taking place in the context of international women's day.

1073
It is no exaggeration to say that poverty has a female face, and nowhere is that more true than in the developing world. There are many disturbing facts, and I shall highlight just a few that really hit home in preparing for the debate. According to the United Nations Development Fund for Women, women are still the poorest of the world's poor, representing 70 per cent. of the 1.3 billion poor in the world. Moreover, the number of women living in poverty has doubled since 1970. In other words, we are going backwards. Rural women—mainly farmers—represent more than a quarter of the total world population. On average, they produce more than half the food that is grown, but they own only 2 per cent. of the land. Women represent two thirds of all illiterate people.
There are terrible inequalities in maternal mortality. According to UNICEF, a woman dies every minute while pregnant or giving birth. A woman who gives birth in a developing country has as high as a one in 13 chance of dying, but in developed countries such as ours the risk is one in 4,100.
On health care for women, the startling fact is that last year, 1.3 million women died of HIV-AIDS. However, In sub-saharan Africa, teenage girls are five times more likely to be infected than boys, because most are infected not by boys of their own age, but by older men. That problem needs to be addressed. Older women in sub-saharan Africa sometimes look after as many as 30 or 40 grandchildren orphaned by HIV-AIDS.
Female genital mutilation is still a problem in east Africa, despite the Kenyan, Ugandan and Tanzanian Parliaments adopting legislation to outlaw it. In Tanzania. it is still performed at an early age by about 20 per cent. of the 130 main ethnic groups.
We have all become much more acquainted with the plight of women in Afghanistan. After 20 years of civil war, a disproportionate number of widows—an estimated 50,000 in Kabul alone—head families. Tajik widows in a refugee camp whom I met complained bitterly that, without men, there is no one to push to the front of the queue to get food for them. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan was the only country in the world to ban women from secondary education. Unsurprisingly, the literacy rate for women is just 13 per cent.
Reconstruction must now partly involve re-establishing women in the country's hierarchy. In living memory—thank goodness—women Ministers have participated in Afghan politics, but there are already bad signs. Initially, the Afghan women's ministry was not funded, and it remains underfunded.
Mr. Swire: Every Member of this House will agree that, in an ideal world, more women should be involved in front-line Afghan politics, but does my hon. Friend not regret the fact that, when our forces were actively engaged in Afghanistan in the aftermath of 11 September, certain Labour Members concentrated on achieving a gender balance in an Afghan government? Perhaps they should have talked more about getting the ethnic balance right.
Mrs. Spelman: We must be very careful about imposing on Afghan people a western view of how they should run their country. Until I visited that region, I did not understand the wearing of the burqa. That seems abhorrent to us in the west, but it was explained to me that women are in purdah—behind the curtain—and if one
1074
wants to go out, one must do so behind the curtain. That point had not occurred to me. The western perspective persists that it is an abhorrent custom, but one Afghan woman told me, "You want me to remove the burqa, but you forget that I have to go home to my husband, and he hasn't changed." We must therefore be very careful about imposing a western view, but we support the Interim Administration's appointing two women Ministers.
Fiona Mactaggart: For the avoidance of doubt, will the hon. Lady confirm that she thinks it abhorrent that, in Afghanistan, women were excluded from schools and women doctors were refused the right to practise? Does she agree that that is an abuse of international human rights standards that every democratic politician in the world, western or otherwise, should be concerned about?
Mrs. Spelman: I hope that the hon. Lady was listening when I highlighted the abhorrent fact—let there be no doubt—that Afghanistan is the only country in the world to have banned women from secondary education. What flows from that is the closure to the professions that she describes. I was merely pointing out that it is important not to impose our norms on the culture of another country. Islamic societies do not necessarily discriminate against women, and I do not want anyone to think that I was arguing to the contrary.
In 1977, 15 per cent. of legislators in Afghanistan were women. Until the 1990s, women comprised 70 per cent. of all teachers, 50 per cent. of Government workers and 40 per cent. of medical doctors. Throughout the developing world, women can occupy positions of power and influence.
Helen Jackson: In the context of the disastrous treatment of women in Afghanistan, does the hon. Lady agree that women are often a strong and powerful force in conflict resolution at a community and a national level? If women are excluded in a country that is suffering violence, it is far more difficult to achieve a peaceful and democratic resolution.
Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Lady will know that such an analysis of the peaceful and reconciliatory role that women can play in conflicts applies to many parts of the world, including close to home.
Throughout the developing world, it is vital that women have better access to education, health care and the infrastructures that can help them to build up small businesses. In the most recent session of International Development questions, I called for microcredit to be used in Afghanistan to kick-start or re-direct production, thereby giving women the power to start their own small businesses. Aid agencies have helped immensely in that regard by establishing bakeries run by women.
I commend to the Government Africa's "Send a Cow" charity, with which the Minister is doubtless familiar. It gives women in the third world a cow to provide milk for their village, enabling them to build from that example. Women with a cow are more immediately respected, because they can nourish their children and sell their milk. Other schemes that provide water nearer to villages can also release women from the daily drudgery of walking several miles each day to get water.
There are many human rights abuses around the world and I cannot give a comprehensive list, but in the context of international women's day I want to discuss child

1075
trafficking, which is of great concern. It is mainly girls, particularly from west Africa, who are lured to European countries by promises of a better life and education. Some of them end up as virtual slaves, and others end up as prostitutes. In the wake of the Victoria Climbie tragedy, the spotlight is now being turned on private fostering. However, I hope that the Government will heed calls from Conservative Members to devote resources to an education campaign for parents in west Africa, so that we can spell out the inherent dangers of selling their children, simply in order that they can come to this country.
Another abuse against women that has been in the news recently is the issue of Asian girls who have been brought up here being forced into marriages with men in India and Pakistan. In just 18 months, the Foreign Office has dealt with 240 cases of forced marriage, and has repatriated more than 60 young people who were taken abroad to be married against their will. I hope that the Government will tackle that issue.
One of the greatest vehicles of empowerment for women is education, both here and in the developing world. Through education comes better health, and through health and education comes opportunity for change. A report produced by the YWCA on "Poverty: the price of young motherhood in Britain", shows that young women with no educational qualifications are almost twice as likely to report having a child in their teens as those who have GCSEs. Although, nationally, girls outperform boys, among ethnic groups Bangladeshi young women are twice as likely as their white peers to be without educational qualifications at the age of 16. Research by the Policy Studies Institute reveals that Bangladeshi girls are falling behind the boys by 10 per cent., which challenges the received wisdom that girls now do better than boys at school. I support the YWCA recommendation for a special working group on girls' school exclusion and disaffection. That issue is often lost in the generalisation that girls now outperform boys.
It is true that when we compare the fate of women in the developed world with those in the developing world, we find that our lot is much happier, but violence against women by men is no respecter of race, class or colour. In this country we now have refuges for women escaping male violence—one for every 200,000 of the population—but in the third world such luxuries do not exist. In some cultures, it is practically the norm for men to mistreat their women. According to the secretary general of Amnesty International, Irene Khan,
"Violence against women is one of the most pervasive yet hidden forms of human rights abuse throughout the world."
So, where does that lead us? In this country, we need to temper legislation with consensus, to teach by example, to produce role models for women to imitate, and to encourage the practice of mentoring.
We need to be sensitive to the rights of women in work to encourage them to break through the infamous glass ceiling. I often speak at girls' sixth form colleges on the subject of juggling work and family life. I advise the girls to work out their priorities in advance, to be bold in asking for what they need to balance their lives and, above all, to retain a sense of humour. However, if we fail to teach
1076
the boys at the same time that women expect to be treated as equals, we simply create a deeper gulf of misunderstanding, resentment and even violence.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: The hon. Lady mentioned domestic violence and refuges. Will she acknowledge that the Home Office has done a lot of work with police authorities to try to ensure that women do not have to leave their homes and flee to refuges with their children, which is what they have had to do in the past?
Mrs. Spelman: We could have a separate debate on domestic violence, and I might commend that to hon. Members, because it is an unspoken but important issue. As a new Member of Parliament, I was struck by what the police told me about domestic violence. When a case occurs, the problem is that they all too often have to send the woman back home. While the Home Office is beginning to address the issue in the domestic setting, it is vital that women have somewhere safe to go while the wider ramifications of the domestic dispute at the heart of the violence are investigated. I have learned from my surgeries that there are two sides to a story, and that an initial interview with one person does not always reveal all the aspects. If a woman has a safe place to go with her children, it can create the breathing space to consider the extent and nature of the problem.
All that we do to help women achieve the equality for which they strive must be done in the certain knowledge that it is no mere concession to political correctness. By not treating women as equals, we are missing out on a lot of talent, skills and knowledge. We must carefully scrutinise legislation to achieve our aims. We must not allow red tape protecting women's rights at work to become another tool to beat women with, or an excuse not to employ them.
Not for the first time since taking up my brief as shadow Secretary of State for International Development I have been struck by the huge gulf between what are seen as major problems in this country compared with what is happening in the developing world. That is never more true than in this debate on women and equality. As I hope I have been able to show, the lot of women in the developing world is a difficult, dangerous one. Yes, we must work to right our own inequalities, but let us not lose sight of the women of the third world who are centuries behind us and where the words "equality" and "woman" seem at present on opposite sides of a giant chasm.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has put a time limit of 12 minutes on all Back-Bench speeches, which applies from now on. We have had three statements today, which has taken a lot of time out of this debate and many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If Members can limit their remarks to less than 12 minutes, fewer of them will be disappointed.
4.16 pm
Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome this debate. It is too rare that we discuss the issue of equality and women, and we need to acknowledge that those two

1077
words still do not mesh together as well as they should. Equality for women is still a long way off. However, many of the formal barriers that women used to have to jump over have gone. The higher pass marks for those girls trying to get into grammar schools have gone. Lower pay for women teachers has theoretically gone, although in practice we know that women in the public services are not paid as well as men. I also wish the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) luck in his attempt to get rid of another formal barrier to women in private clubs.
We know, however, that women still face constant and chronic disadvantages that make our society less effective. Like the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), I looked at the issue in an international context. As a supporter of an organisation called Womankind Worldwide, I wish to focus on four areas of literacy that it has described as important for women in developing countries and that are also important for women in Britain today. Those are literacies of the word, of money, of the body and of civic society.
The obvious literacy that we all know about is the right to read. Indeed, my maiden speech was about the human right to read. I celebrate wholeheartedly the improvements in children's literacy achieved through the literacy strategy. When I first stood for election, less than half of 11-year-olds in my constituency reached the expected literacy standards, but that figure is now up to three quarters. That is good work, but an important job remains. We must give women in the poorest countries access to the right to read, but we must also give it to women in this country. Women who did not succeed in school or benefit from developed literacy strategies often work in jobs with less access to learning and training on the job than men have. We need to focus directly on women's education.
We could make a difference in two specific areas. The first is those jobs where women help other women and other professionals to do their job better—nursing auxiliaries and teaching assistants are the two that come to mind. Fantastic, talented women who missed out in their first education do those jobs for terrible pay—teaching assistants, for example, are often only paid in term-time—and have the capacity to achieve more but cannot afford to take time out of those poorly paid jobs to go on full-time training courses. There are still not enough opportunities for teaching assistants to become teachers. I used to teach people to be teachers, and I know what it takes to be a good primary teacher.
First, it takes the ability to talk to children. I used to work at one of the most high-powered education institutes in this country, and I taught many clever young men who did not know how to talk to children—it was as though they were talking to Martians. The wonderful thing about teaching assistants is that they know how to talk to children, so they have the first thing that they need.
We must do a better job for nursing auxiliaries and teaching assistants to give them a ladder on which they can progress from their present situation to gain professional qualifications. For the most dynamic among them, those ladders exist. However, we need to give them leg-ups and more help. That would not only give women more opportunities but help to solve the teaching and nursing shortages in constituencies such as mine.
The second area of education that is important to women is English for speakers of other languages. Many women who come to this country operate in their first
1078
language all the time. They do not get access to learning English, which cuts them off from access to the economy in many ways. We must ensure that women migrants get an early chance to learn English when they come here. I welcome those elements of the Home Secretary's proposals that will make that more possible, but I urge the Minister for Women to give him more power to his elbow, particularly in relation to women.
On money, the Government have made a big difference for women in our Budgets. For the first time, we know how much better women have done than men from them. I am glad to say that, and it is right. Unless the Budget deals with some of the income inequalities that chronically disadvantage women, they will continue. We are still miles behind on equal pay. Britain is still 12th out of 15 in the EU in the width of the pay gap, and we must make more of a difference. I urge Ministers to lead the way in the public sector by using pay audits and by publicising schemes—having learned from the pay audit about levels of inequality—to tackle it.
As a corollary of what I was saying about teaching assistants and nursing auxiliaries, we also need to provide more opportunities and support for women to get to the top of the professions and the jobs that they do. We all know that in almost every area, the largest number of men are at the top, and the largest number of women are at the bottom of almost any career structure, whether it is university lecturers and vice-chancellors, or, as the hon. Member for Meriden said, nurses at H-grade or the bottom grade. A particular task for the Government is to challenge institutions in the public sector and companies in the private sector not just to promote women but to give them opportunities for training and learning.
The other times when we can make a big difference to the money situation of women is at the youngest age of life and at the oldest. Ensuring that women have access to affordable child care is a high priority. Nursery vouchers were the beginning of a mistake that in some ways the Government have made worse by introducing an earlier start for children's formal schooling. Too many children at just four years of age are going into primary schools. That is not the best place for a four-year-old. The learning that they need when they are rising five and just over three is about how to share their toys, how to queue up, how to listen and how to play nicely. Those things are not best taught in a reception class; they are much better taught in a playgroup or nursery. I worry that in our charge for high standards, we have sometimes forgotten that we start formal education earlier in this country than in any other in the world. There may be a price to pay for that. Research in America on the High/Scope Perry pre-school project found that children who had an early experience of constructive play were more likely to go to university and less likely to go to prison than children who had no pre-school experience or children who had a formal educational experience too early.
The third literacy is that of the body. We urgently need to ensure that women's health is taken more seriously. Until very recently, all drugs were tested on men, and decisions on giving those drugs to women were based on men's test results. Women's bodies are less predictable because our hormone levels change from month to month, so it was thought that we were not such good subjects for testing. Nobody thought that it was not a good idea to assume that our bodies would react in the same way to drugs as men's bodies. Although drug testing is beginning

1079
to change, the same mindset determines which drugs to test. Therefore, the sorts of drugs being developed to deal with heart attacks and strokes relate to the heart attack patterns of men—who have their heart attacks at 40—and not to the heart attack patterns of women, who have their heart attacks after the menopause. We need to ensure that the Department of Health considers that issue, and that we consider the other issue that affects people's health—housing. In my constituency, women who live in disgusting housing keep telling me about how it is damaging the health of their children.
I shall now deal with civic society and women's role in it. The hon. Member for Meriden said that men in her party recognise that it has been a struggle for women to become Members, so they do not discriminate against them. However, I was in the Lobby with a man from her party the other day who was surprised by the number of women there. He said, "How nice it is to see all these pretty fillies here." I thought to myself, "What century are we living in?" He was certainly living in a different one from me. Women achieve positions of power on merit, even if we are helped by positive action programmes. Let us look at what women who are here through the women-only shortlist process have achieved. Putting women into these positions means that thought is given to the consequences of policy—the school-run rather than just roads and trains, and about how women live their lives. Unless policy addresses things such as the dog poo in the lift or the man exposing himself—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her 12 minutes.
4.29 pm
Sandra Gidley: I welcome this debate and hope that it will become an annual event.
It was interesting to hear the Minister reflect on how far we have come in 50 years. It gave me pause to reflect that, even 27 years ago, when I first went to university, all my parents' relatives were saying, "Why are you encouraging her to go to university? Education is wasted on a girl." That was not so long ago. We have taken great strides since.
Helen Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; I am sure that she will be given injury time. I want to congratulate her wholeheartedly on her presence in the Chamber for this debate, but does she feel that she could do more to encourage more Liberal Democrat Members to take part? Members of her party occupy positions of responsibility in major cities such as Sheffield. Could she do more to encourage them to put the needs of women with regard to public transport and buses, for example, before the needs of the men who drive the private cars? Liberal Democrats are rapidly gaining a reputation for dismissing that policy area.
Sandra Gidley: I could give a typical male-type answer and bluff, but I will not. I am a female politician and we have a good reputation for honesty. I admit that I am disappointed that not a single other Liberal Democrat Member is present. I am so ashamed of that that I have no qualms about having my disappointment recorded in
1080
Hansard. I will take up the matter with my hon. Friends, and deliver a kick to the appropriate part of certain colleagues' anatomies.
I must add that some Liberal Democrat Members had constituency engagements—some of them involving women—that prevented them from attending, even though they wanted to. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish".] It is not rubbish. I am not in the habit of making false statements. The evidence speaks for itself, however, and I am disappointed.
I know that one of you is going to stand up and say, "Why didn't your party approve all-women shortlists?" You may well ask that question. As I was disappointed at that. I was on the other side of the argument, the side that lost.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Come and join us.
Sandra Gidley: It is not all about women.
My party has made a huge commitment both financially and in encouraging and mentoring women in ways not entirely dissimilar to the seminars that the Government are arranging around the country to attract more women into public life. Mentoring is important for women, and we are doing a lot of that behind the scenes. My party is doing more than that, however.
My party had 50-50 shortlists in the last European elections. That proved an effective way of ensuring that half our party's representatives in Europe are women. No one can say that those women did not get there on merit. They would probably have got there anyway.
I back the findings of the recent Equal Opportunities Commission survey. It pointed out that, in the absence of proportional representation—a subject that I am sorry to have to bring up—only positive discrimination will get more women into Parliament. That happened for the Labour party in 1997. I was disappointed that you went backwards—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she must remember to use the correct parliamentary language. She keeps using the word "you", and she must not when she is making her remarks.
Sandra Gidley: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We have to find ways to use the measures that the Government have introduced. We have tried 50-50 shortlists in the past, but they have not always worked. I look forward with interest to finding out what all parties are going to do to deal with what will be a severe problem. Today is exceptional, in that there are more women than men in the Chamber. Normally, the opposite is true, and that is a barrier for women who want to enter the House. Unless the women's agenda is at the forefront of what we do, there will be no change.
I do not want to be completely carping today. The Government have achieved some success. Some Bills, such as the Employment Bill, have significantly enhanced the conditions of working parents. That must be a good thing, and it is a perfect example of putting women at the forefront of any legislation.
We must also try to make it easier for fathers to play an active part in raising their young. When we as a society speak of the women's agenda, we sometimes forget that many men would prefer to take a more active role in child care.

1081
I also warmly welcome the Government's commitment to the national minimum wage and to increasing the number of child care places. The target for the latter is 1.6 million by 2004, but nearly half those places remain to be found in the next two years. When the Minister replies, I hope that we will learn what measures have been put in place to ensure that the target is met.
The Minister mentioned part-time working, and the return of women to work after childbirth. Problems can still arise and, although things are getting better, we must continue to find ways to ensure that we take up the skills that are on offer. We must not offer women what many will consider to be an unacceptable, take-it-or-leave-it option.
I want to spend most of my time talking about women in the public services. Unfortunately, there is much evidence that institutionalised sexism persists in the NHS. Reports of more explicit discrimination at the more traditional level, especially among surgeons, are widespread. For reasons that may include lower career expectations, family breaks and inherent discrimination, reports indicate that women are paid less than men in the same profession.
Men are less likely to have as much academic training or as many qualifications as women, yet they are twice as likely to be boosted into the higher echelons of the NHS. Earlier, we heard figures that showed the discrepancies that exist in the NHS. Work by the Fawcett Society shows that 75 per cent. of NHS staff are women, and that 88 per cent. of nurses are female. However, women doctors on average earn £180 a week less than men, and they are reported to work longer hours. We cannot say that we do not get value for money.
One reason for the persistent pay gap is that women are generally under-represented in senior and management grades. Even in the female-dominated nursing profession, only 77 per cent. of staff at managerial level are women. The Fawcett Society figures show that 63 per cent. of psychiatric nurses are female, but that only 47 per cent. of managers are female.
Women make up just over half the total number of house officers and senior house officers, but, at about 21 per cent. according to the latest figures, they are still under-represented among consultants. Even then, variations persist, with women accounting for 5 per cent. of surgeons, and for fewer than 20 per cent. of consultants in accident and emergency and general medicine. However, women account for a dizzy 37.6 per cent. of paediatricians.
More women than men in the NHS choose to take advantage of flexible working contracts. That option allows workers to enjoy the equivalent of part-time posts, but there are no job shares at consultant level. The Government have made no long-term commitment to providing adequate funding for junior flexible working contracts, although a two-year funding sticking plaster has been applied. I hope that the Government will commit to dealing with some of the more long-term problems.
More women are entering medicine. Many will want a break, for family reasons. We have to accept that women have babies and leave work for a while. That is what we do—not best, but certainly better than men. I hope that the Minister will say what assessment has been made of the extra numbers of doctors who will have to be trained,
1082
in addition to what is set out in the NHS plan. A severe gender crisis is quickly coming down the tracks in the NHS, but I have not seen that acknowledged.
In higher education, the pay gap is supposed to have narrowed by 10 per cent. over the past decade, but if one analyses it, one finds that the gap has increased in the past five years and is now about 17 per cent. On average, men earn £113 more a week. The gravest example is in St. George's hospital medical school, where the pay gap is 45 per cent., which we should all be ashamed of.
The Government have some control over the NHS and the education service, but it appears that it is still just jobs for the boys. Will the Government commit to undertaking pay audits in those sectors so that the process is more transparent and we can see more readily whether there is any deliberate, institutional or accidental discrimination?
We have touched on the election, and I shall not dwell on private grief, so I shall turn to public bodies. In 2001, of those serving on public bodies, 34 per cent. were women. That has risen by less than 2 per cent. since 1997. The target seems to have slipped: it was for 50-50 representation, but the latest figure is between 45 and 50 per cent. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the target for all Government bodies, and the date by which it will be achieved? There seems to be confusion about that.
In non-departmental public bodies, only 27 per cent. of women are at executive level, and even fewer, 25 per cent., are at advisory level. In the Prison Service, only 17 per cent. of the members of boards of visitors are women. As has been said, nationalised industries hit the bottom of the scale at 14 per cent. female representation, and only the NHS is approaching respectability at 43 per cent., but that must be set in the context of the overall gender balance of the work force.
I admit that there are problems similar to those faced by political parties. The boys do not want to give up their jobs, and they make it very difficult for women to progress in their careers. For many roles there is a still a man-shaped hole to fill, and we have to get past that. Chairmen, or chairpersons, of the board do not have to be men, and MPs do not have to be men, but if one asks somebody to describe an MP or a chairperson, they will come up with a male figure. We must challenge some of those perceptions and smash those stereotypes.
Mr. Eric Joyce: Does the hon. Lady think that it would be a good idea for the Liberal Democrats' spokesperson for women to be a woman, rather than a man?
Sandra Gidley: I am the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, and the last time I looked, I was still female.
While preparing for the debate, I accessed the Women's National Commission website. The personal experience section was well meant, but I am not sure that it had the right image. If I had been accessing the site as a woman looking for a job, or a way into a public body, I would have been slightly put off by the fact that at the top of the list was a dame, closely followed by a baroness. What should have been at the top was everyday stories of female folk, so that a woman looking at the site thinks, "Yes, I can do that too. I can take part." The perception that we have even of the women in public life can be somewhat skewed by the images that are portrayed.

1083
Women have had the vote for over 70 years, but unfortunately we still have a long way to go before we achieve equality. I hope that all of us here today are committed to working towards that and, as much as possible, to working together.
4.44 pm
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Those who are of a certain age—my age or a bit younger—may remember the weekly article that used to be written in a lovely style by Jill Tweedie. It was called "Diary of a Faint-Hearted Feminist". At that time, I regarded myself as being in that category. I have changed a bit, and I am a little less faint-hearted—although I would still not call myself a militant feminist—probably as a result of being in this place for five years and enduring the gentleman's club-like attitudes and atmosphere of the Chamber and the Smoking Rooms.
In addition, I have had to do a great deal of work, which is a great pleasure but upsets me at times, to help my young Asian women and girls. That has pushed me a little towards militant feminism because I do get a bit angry with the attitude of some of the so-called, self-styled Asian leaders in the Bradford area. I think that it is a Bradford thing, and perhaps someone will inform me whether it has spread to other parts.
In February 1999, I secured an Adjournment debate, which I called "Human Rights (Women)", so that it did not seem too controversial. I was petrified of calling it "Forced Marriages", although it was about the forced marriages of Asian women and girls. We have four men here today. On that morning, I think that only one man was present. He was from Bradford, and he nodded in all the right places but he did not participate in the debate, so not a single man spoke from the Labour Benches on that important issue. That was the first time that forced marriages had been mentioned in Parliament, and I regarded the debate with some trepidation. In fact, I was terrified.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who has left her seat, was present that day and, to give her credit, she spoke well on the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) also spoke in the debate. It was a good debate, but it was a pity that we did not have more men participating. I wonder to this day why that was the case. Why do men move away from confronting this particularly terrible situation that so many Asian girls find themselves in? I am not moving away from it; I am sticking with it.
I am delighted with many of the measures that the Government have introduced. This is not a party political broadcast, and I rarely make such comments. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned that 420 young women and girls have been repatriated, some from India and many from Bangladesh and Pakistan. That happened not with the wave of a magic wand but because the Government focused on the matter. Since I raised the subject three years ago, they have been working assiduously to stop that practice. They started with a Home Office working group, and then both the Home Office and the Foreign Office set up action plans. All that sounds terribly trendy, and in some cases it may not mean anything, but in this case it did.
1084
The Foreign Office set up a consular desk simply to look after girls who had been whisked away. As the hon. Lady said, 420 have been repatriated in the last 18 months. The consular division of the Foreign Office also launched a video last Monday, and I do not know whether it is an accident but that seemed to coincide with international women's day. The video explains what marriage is all about. One would not think that it was necessary, but it is. It explains the value of marriage in all sections of the community, including arranged marriage. It stated specifically what an arranged marriage can be, and I would not knock arranged marriages because they can be vastly superior to some of our own methods. The video went on to talk about forced marriages, and three people spoke about their experience of those.
That is excellent stuff, and the Government have done very well. The Home Office has at last recognised the need for English to be spoken. The White Paper suggests that young men and women who come here as husbands and wives ought to be learning English. That is already a vague requirement for citizenship, but the requirement will be more precise, and a good knowledge of English will be needed, as will a knowledge of institutions, rights and responsibilities. All that is very good, and it will improve the lot of many of my Asian women and young girls.
The indigenous community should not be too smug. We are not all that good when it comes to gender equality. If we were, there would he equal numbers of men and women in this place and in many other institutions. There would not be a glass ceiling for executive women in business.
Andrew Selous: I join the hon. Lady in congratulating the Home Office on the excellent work that it has done in promoting marriage among her ethnic minority constituents. Will she join me in regretting the Government's decision this week to withdraw funding from national marriage week?
Mrs. Cryer: I was not aware of that. I am not sure how much difference that will make. I am in favour of marriage, as I think are most of us on the Government Benches. We cannot all get married for various reasons but, by and large, the Government are in favour of marriage. A great deal has been done. The video to which I have referred explains clearly that marriage is a good thing. It does not knock marriage. It deals with the issue of forced marriage.
If we had followed the Scandinavian example. We would by now have equal numbers of men and women in this place and in the other place. That would be good. It would send out a message to the Asian community that we are concerned about gender equality.
Unfortunately, the only way that we could start to move towards gender equality in this place was to have all-women shortlists. That is not a perfect system, and I do not think that any of us consider it to be so. However, I think that it is as good as we shall get. The Scandinavians can have equal numbers because they have list systems, but I do not particularly like such systems because they give too much power to the leadership, and I am opposed to that. I prefer to stick with the first-past-the-post system, so the only way in which we can bring about improvement is to have all-women

1085
shortlists. I am pleased that the Conservative party will be adopting that system. I wish that the Liberal Democrats would do so, and all power to the elbow of the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley).
Shortly after being elected to this place, I joined the Council of Europe and became a member of its equal opportunities committee. International women's day took place recently, and we passed a letter that was to be sent to the Nigerian ambassador in Paris. We meet in Paris. The letter reads:
"Your Excellency, I hope that this request does not arrive too late. I have just heard that on 12 January last, a young 35-year-old Nigerian woman, Ms Safya Husseini Tungar Fudu, was to be buried alive up to the chest and then lapidated to death for having born a child without being married. The President of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the State of Sokoto has adjourned the case to 18 March."
That is next Tuesday. I am reading the letter so that all Members may make representations to the Nigerian embassy in London. The letter continues:
"We ask you to take the necessary steps to ensure that this barbaric and unworthy judgment is swiftly set aside in compliance with the principles of international law and the principles governing human dignity."
The case is horrific. I hope that everyone will write to the Nigerian embassy to make it clear that what is happening is entirely unacceptable. Whether it is labelled Sharia or whatever, it is unacceptable.
There is a less than satisfactory state of affairs within the indigenous population. For example, there is the Church of England. I tabled early-day motion 755 about a month ago, which is headed "Gender Equality in the Church of England". I will skip through it quickly. It reads:
"That this House notes the Church of England is exempted from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 due to the attitudes and activities of a minority who are in disagreement with the ordination of women; affirms the need to strengthen and forward the movement against discrimination on grounds of gender; trusts the Church will thus be encouraged to catch up speedily with the vast majority of institutions; and believes that the appointment of an Archbishop of Canterbury could provide the perfect opportunity to forge leadership which would unite the Church of England behind justice for women and end the unfortunate and embarrassing need for 'flying' bishops'."
I do not have time to go into what flying bishops are, but I am sure that some Members know what I am talking about.
A young lady went to a selection conference for ordination. She was questioned closely about her child care arrangements. Were the young men at that selection conference questioned equally closely about their child care arrangements? Even if they were, it would be unfair if selection conferences were to come down against young women on that ground. She was not selected, and she felt strongly that those conducting the conference were assuming that she could not cope with child care and being a Church of England vicar.
Many women Members cope well—I am amazed by them—with young children and a job in this place. Some of them are Ministers.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) tabled early-day motion 927, which is headed, "Military Action against Iraq". By and large, wars are waged by men. I know that this is a generality, but wars are suffered mainly by women and their children. I supported the Government on the need for intervention
1086
in Afghanistan because I loathed and detested the Taliban because of their attitude to and cruelty to women. However, I would have grave reservations about any attack on Iraq.
Finally—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her 12 minutes.
4.56 pm
Mr. Robert Walter: I am delighted to participate in the debate. I shall deal briefly with two issues that are covered by legislation that the House has been or will be considering this Session. These issues are the selection of election candidates and the situation in private members' clubs.
Currently, Britain has one of the lowest levels of political representation of women in Europe. It has been argued that the best way to counter the trend is for parties to use positive action mechanisms. Encouragement, coercion and shame seem not to have worked. Where positive action has been used it has dramatically increased women's representation.
During the passage of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill, I highlighted that at the previous election we saw 118 women elected to Parliament, which was a smaller number than in 1997. That represents progress at a rate of about 1.5 women a year in the 82 years since women have been eligible to sit in this place. We seem to have gone into reverse, and only Ireland and France have lower levels of female representation.
Positive action is needed, and not only because women are not able to succeed on merit. It is needed because discrimination in the selection process means that they are rarely given the opportunity to try to become elected. Opaque discrimination is inherent in the selection process of all political parties. I suggested on Second Reading of the Bill relating to election candidates that they are predominantly elderly selectors, and in some Tory constituencies might be looking for a married man who is about 40, with a reasonable career in the City, the law or the Army, with some experience of local government. The real clincher would be the attractive wife, two smashing kids and a labrador. The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 is not a patronising measure; it is permissive. Political parties may take advantage of it if they wish, but it does not force any party to adopt all-women shortlists if it does not want to do so. I believe that the measure is essential and will be temporary, although it is very timely.
I turn now to two other measures: the Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Bill, which was introduced in this House in my name and those of several other hon. Members, and the identical Sex Discrimination (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, which received its Second Reading last night in the House of Lords. The measure is simple: it is about dignity and simply provides that if a club offers membership and facilities to men and women, it must do so on equal terms.
When I introduced a similar Bill three years ago, I did not foresee its far-reaching implications. I had had personal experience of the injustice of a club that offered membership to both men and women, but gave women only second-class membership. I refer to the Carlton club, in respect of which I had been part of campaign to try to

1087
remedy that injustice. There have now been three separate occasions on which the club has narrowly missed the opportunity to move itself into the modern world. Although others have resigned from the Carlton club both before and after me, the club seems not to want to budge on the issue. I give great credit to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for being the first leader of the Conservative party in 150 years to decline to become a member of the Carlton club because of this very issue. I also congratulate other Conservative Members who have resigned from it in the past few years. Of course, when I introduced my Bill three years ago, it failed, as do many private Members' Bills.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of the Carlton club, it may interest him to know that a few years ago, I became the second woman chairman of the Bow group. I was taken aside by a Carlton club member—we used to hold our meetings there regularly—and told that it would probably be all right, as long as I did not make myself too obvious.
Mr. Walter: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful and supportive intervention.
In December last year, I reintroduced my original Bill under the ten-minute rule. It is due to be considered on Second Reading tomorrow, but alas, it lies at No. 5 on the Order Paper, and I fear that it is unlikely to make progress. I was therefore delighted when Lord Faulkner of Worcester introduced the identical Bill in the other place. As I said, it received its Second Reading last night almost without opposition; I fear that the only slight hint of opposition came from a Labour Member, Lord Borne, who felt that the measure was ahead of its time. I am sure that that Bill will make progress; in fact, I know that it will do so. If all goes well, their lordships will complete all stages of consideration in May and then send it down the Corridor to us.
I am extremely grateful for the cross-party support for my Bill and its sister Bill in the other place. I am encouraged by the support from Conservative Members, including Front Benchers. I hope that the actions of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the Carlton speak for themselves.
I should also like to express my thanks and admiration to the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, who has made it absolutely clear to me that she now supports the measure. I thank her for that support and for her generosity in meeting me with her officials to discuss how we might take the matter forward. However, I should like unreservedly to apologise to her if the detail of our recent meeting was misrepresented in the press and set the record straight. On the basis that the Government would support the Lords' version of the Bill, she reasonably asked me whether I would withdraw my Bill in this House. I have said—this is a critical indication of the Government's support for the measure—that I shall withdraw my Bill if she can either directly or through the Leader of the House assure me and all the Bill's supporters in this House that Government time will be made available for consideration of the Lords' version when it comes to this place. The Government have to bite the bullet.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): This afternoon, the hon. Gentleman told me on
1088
the telephone that the letter in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph was wrong. He has not confirmed that in his speech. For clarity, will he now repeat what he told me on the telephone this afternoon?
Mr. Walter: I do not want to delay the House, but I will happily satisfy the hon. Lady. I repeat what I just said. The hon. Lady did not, as the letter in The Daily Telegraph said, suggest to me that if I withdrew my Bill, the Government would support the Lord's measure, which I think is the crux of what she asked me to say. What I said, and what I repeated, is that I will withdraw my Bill if the Government make time available in this place. I think that that is reasonable on my part, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would agree.
Mrs. Roche indicated dissent.
Mr. Walter: Perhaps we can discuss that on another occasion.
The Government must bite the bullet. Conservative Members may be embarrassed by one club—the Carlton—but Labour clubs have an appalling record on this issue. The Clubs and Institutes Union, to which Labour clubs are affiliated, has 2,700 member institutions, eight of which are single sex, 1,080, 40 per cent., offer full membership rights to women, and 1,612, 60 per cent., give second-class status to women.
Mr. Joyce: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is referring to Labour party clubs or is using the word labour in a generic form?
Mr. Walter: They are clubs in the CIU, which is the union to which all Labour clubs are affiliated. I think that that is clear. These are Labour social clubs, sometimes called working men's clubs.
Mr. Joyce: They are nothing to do with the Labour party.
Mr. Walter: In the same way, there are Conservative clubs that are associated to the Association of Conservative Clubs.
I have no doubt of hon. Members abhorrence of that situation, even if some are in denial. Right hon. and hon. Members would abhor the practice, and I have no doubt that they support the Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Bill. But I am looking for a clear commitment that time will be made available in the House to deal with this outdated form of sex discrimination. Such a measure is long overdue. What I want to know now is whether the Government have the commitment to tell the House that they too feel that it is long overdue and will make time available for its debate.
5.8 pm
Chris McCafferty: As chair of the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health, hon. Members will not be surprised that I want to speak about reproductive rights and sexual violence against women and their impact on gender equality.
Gender-based violence has been the subject of considerable discussion with regard to population matters since the concept of reproductive rights gained currency.

1089
The main focus of those discussions has been around domestic violence, honour killings and female genital mutilation. The United Nations declaration on the elimination of violence against women defines violence against women as
"any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or mental harm or suffering to women."
Gender-based violence often begins at an early age. Female infanticide has long been practised in societies where male children are still valued, economically and socially, above girls. During childhood, preferential allocation of family resources to male children often impacts negatively on the health of girls.
Domestic violence is the most common form of gender-based violence and, as women enter marriage, often as adolescents and in some instances without their consent, it can become a problem. That is especially true where the husband is considerably older than his wife and where local custom recognises the husband as the dominant partner.
Violence against women occurs in other situations where they are unable to exercise their right to fair treatment. They include the sexual exploitation of women refugees, rape as a weapon of war and trafficking in women for sex work. Trafficking in women has become a global problem and is one of the world's greatest violations of human rights. Up to 1,500 girls and young women are traded into the United Kingdom every year, and those affected are getting younger and younger—many are as young as 15.
To eliminate the trafficking of women into the UK, we must work on three main areas: prosecution, protection and prevention. The crime is cash-rich and traffickers have little to lose. The maximum penalty for human trafficking is only 18 months to two years, so the Government's proposal to increase it is welcome and necessary.
Shelters or refuges for women who are able to escape from traffickers are equally important. Because violence against women is frequently rooted in the unequal balance of power between men and women, the most effective counter-measure over the long term must remain continual progress towards the empowerment of women—equal educational opportunities for girls and, for adult women, greater control over their resources and greater decision-making powers. Those are prerequisites in the drive to eliminate the trafficking of human beings.
The most extreme form of gender-based violence is honour killing, which is used mainly to control women's sexuality and occurs in many countries of western and south Asia. A woman who is raped or voluntarily engages in sex outside marriage is considered to have defiled the family name. In some cases, the woman or girl may be suspected only of shameful or dishonourable behaviour, but the allegation is enough to dishonour her family.
In some countries, the law allows honour killing, but even where it is not explicitly permitted, the crime may not be prosecuted. For example, the penal code of Jordan exempts from any penalty a man who kills, wounds or injures a female relative who has committed adultery. A similar exemption exists in Syrian law. In Pakistan, hundreds of women are killed every year for crimes such as adultery, breaking an arranged marriage or simply attempting to obtain a divorce. A recent study of female
1090
homicide in Alexandria, Egypt found that 47 per cent. of all women killed had been murdered by a relative after they had been raped.
Honour killing should and must be tackled. It is an outrage that those who commit such crimes are often openly admired in their communities and subjected only to token prosecution. For too long, some men have been getting away with murder. It is time for Governments and local communities to acknowledge that such actions are crimes and to act decisively. Honour crimes are not confined to developing countries. Whatever they are called, such crimes are committed worldwide. They occur whenever a man regards a woman as his property and seeks to uphold that false assumption by cruel and abusive force.
One of the most complex areas of gender violence is female genital mutilation, or FGM—the name given to several different practices that involve cutting female genitals. Worldwide, an estimated 130 million girls and women have undergone FGM and at least 2 million girls a year are at risk of undergoing some form of the practice. It is usually performed on young girls between the ages of four and 13. The World Health Organisation has stated that FGM doubles the risk of a mother's death in childbirth and increases the risk of her child being born dead by up to three or four times.
Most of the women and girls affected live in Africa, but those who have undergone or who are at risk of FGM are increasingly found in countries of western Europe and other developed countries, primarily among immigrant and refugee communities. Four main justifications are cited for this harmful practice: custom or tradition, religion, social pressure and women's sexuality. It should be remembered that, although FGM is practised by Jews, Christians and Muslims, none of those religions requires it. Although there are such justifications for maintaining the practice, FGM appears to be linked primarily to a desire to subordinate women.
FGM violates the reproductive and human rights of women and girls because it interferes with their right to bodily integrity by removing healthy sexual organs without medical necessity. Although FGM is not undertaken with the intention of inflicting harm, its damaging physical, sexual and psychological effects make it an act of violence against women and girls.
Mrs. Gillan: I agree with the hon. Lady that female genital mutilation is appalling. Does she agree that even legislation does not seem to be the route to banishing this horrible mutilation in certain countries and that only fundamental and continuous education among men and women will lead to good progress being made in outlawing it?
Chris McCafferty: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. We need a bottom-up education of women, as well as of men and children. An education network would ensure that, as groups, they learned about human rights, so that people from countries where FGM is still common realise that the practice is not helpful and must change. However, countries such as Britain must do more through legislation.
Enabling women to choose to abandon FGM requires an improvement in women's status. Governments need to reform all laws that serve as barriers to women's equality.

1091
Women must not stand alone in their demand for social justice; other sectors of society must be involved. Women need allies among politicians, religious leaders and health professionals.
Last year, the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health held hearings on this difficult subject. The aim was to raise awareness of the subject in the UK and abroad, and to generate support for FGM prevention and eradication programmes. The UK has a law on FGM: the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). Despite that Act, there has never been a prosecution in this country, although there is a lot of evidence that FGM is taking place here. An estimated 15,000 girls in the UK are at risk every year, so it is vital that the law is fully implemented.
The hearings panel recommended that the Act be amended to ensure that UK residents who take girls abroad for the purpose of FGM can be prosecuted under UK law when they return, regardless of the legal status of FGM in the country where the mutilation took place. We would also like the name of the Act to be changed to incorporate the term "female genital mutilation". We want health professionals and other relevant authorities to report incidents of FGM so that accurate statistics can be obtained.
Since the UN declaration on the elimination of violence against women in 1993, much progress has been made in establishing reproductive rights. There is, however, a lot more to be accomplished in translating those rights into policies and programmes. Honour killings, human trafficking and female genital mutilation are all gender-based violations that attempt to subordinate women, and it is a fact that gender-based violence causes more disability and deaths in women between the ages of 15 and 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war put together.
I am sure that all hon. Members condemn the centuries-old practices of slavery and torture, and racial and ethnic prejudice, and rightly so. We certainly condemn them when they involve people of colour, political dissidents or ethnic groups. The violation of women's human rights must be met by the same pressure in the House and internationally. Discrimination against girls is a persistent barrier to achievement. It is a violation of human rights and a threat to development—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her time. I call Angela Watkinson.
5.21 pm
Angela Watkinson: Most inequalities for women spring either directly or indirectly from the fact that women have children and men do not. That fact is never going to change, and we have to face up to it. The holy grail of total equality for women is, therefore, unachievable, but enormous progress has been made over the past decades, and I hope that that will continue.
In the home, both parents now share responsibility for the children in a way that never happened when my children were young. That is not a personal criticism of my husband, I hasten to add. Nowadays, with property prices as they are, most mortgages are two-salary
1092
mortgages, so even women who would choose to stay at home and look after their children are unable to do so. The logistics of everyday life in a family—child care, school runs, travel, and going to Brownies, music and swimming lessons—are at least shared by two parents. In my day, women took full responsibility for the running of the entire household and looking after the family, and had a job outside the home only if they could fit it in. Progress has therefore been made in terms of women's ability to choose a career, if they wish to do so.
In the 1950s, all women in the workplace were regarded as temporary employees. It was assumed that, as soon as a woman got married, she would leave fairly shortly afterwards to have children. Even single women who stayed in their jobs all their lives were still regarded as temporary employees, and put on a separate pay scale, on which they were paid less than men for doing exactly the same job. Thank heavens that those days are over. Executive positions for women were extremely rare in those days and, even in 2002, there is a predominance of women in junior posts in most large organisations.
I received a card recently from PCS—the Public and Commercial Services union—about pay in the civil service. I phoned the union, but, unfortunately, it was unable to get back to me to clarify the statistic at the bottom of the card, which states:
"According to Civil Service Statistics, the median gross salary of women is £14,130 (on a full-time equivalent basis) 72 per cent. that of men."
The civil service is supposed to be an enlightened body, so it is very disappointing to know that that disparity still prevails. I wanted to clarify whether that figure involves there being a rate for the job. I hope that it does not mean that women are doing the same job as men for less money. I am sure that it does not, and that it means that there is a rate for the job. The conclusion, however, is that there is a barrier to women receiving promotion, and that a lot of women are undervalued and under-promoted. One wonders whether that is related to the basic fact that they have family commitments. I hope that the organisation will come back to me on that.
Nowadays, there is much heightened awareness of sexism and sexual harassment, which were almost unheard of years ago. It would be a brave colleague on the Conservative Benches who made comments about a "pretty filly" within my earshot, and I do not know who the gentleman referred to earlier was. However, there have been some notable setbacks involving a few well publicised cases in which false accusations have been made. They have done enormous harm to society as a whole, and its perception of gender equality.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned Sweden. I visit Sweden regularly, because my son lives there. I was interested by the hon. Lady's comments about the list system used in elections. There are 101 seats on Stockholm city council, 51 of which are occupied by women. On my last visit, I asked what the women had done to achieve that, and they protested that they had done nothing. Sweden probably has a more advanced attitude than us to gender equality.
New legislation will enable our own political parties to do what they think is right and fair to encourage more women and members of ethnic minorities to come to this place. I have grave reservations about all-women lists. I wonder how much credibility will be given to women

1093
who arrive here by that means, and what status will be afforded to them if it is thought that they might not have managed it otherwise.
Sandra Gidley: As a new Member, can the hon. Lady tell which female Labour Members are products of all-women lists and which are products of the standard selection procedure? I certainly cannot.
Angela Watkinson: I can do so only because it was well publicised at the time. I assure the hon. Lady that I cannot differentiate between them on performance grounds. What concerns me is the perception among the public that those on all-women lists have gained an unfair advantage. Perhaps it would be better if the names, gender and even ages of women applying to become candidates were obscured on their application forms, so that they would be chosen entirely on the basis of merit and experience.
It is particularly important for women to be treated on equal terms in the armed forces, the police and the fire service, where they must serve alongside men. At present, serving men must be confident that women will provide the same service, and will be able to do the job. Diluting entry qualifications is dangerous if standards of service are to be maintained.
The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who is no longer present, spoke of the importance of education. I remember being given career advice at my co-educational grammar school—in 1958, I must confess. Girls were given separate advice. We were taken into the hall and asked to form two orderly groups, teachers on one side and nurses on the other, because those were seen as the only two respectable occupations for women. We are light years away from that now.
Sandra Gidley: Which group did the hon. Lady choose?
Angela Watkinson: Neither, and I was damned from that moment.
There is, 1 believe, a correlation between the amount of sex education and sex information in schools and the alarming number of teenage pregnancies. Sex education for girls should be far more robust. A girl needs to be told in no uncertain terms that if she has sex with a young man with no job, no desire to get married, no desire to settle down, no interest in becoming a parent and no intention of taking responsibility for the outcome—a young man who, unlike the girl, is quite able to walk away from the situation—she will, literally, be left holding the baby. She will be dependent on family or benefits not just for nine months but for a very long time indeed, and will be taking on a 24-hour-a-day responsibility for perhaps 20 years.
Life in a council flat alone with a baby is not half as exciting as that woman might think. Her education will be curtailed, her career prospects ruined, at least for the foreseeable future, and she will have many years of lonely struggle while her personal ambitions are shelved. The skills that she learns during those years are highly transferable to the workplace. Unfortunately, they are not recognised as such, and we can do much more to explain to employers that the survival skills that women learn in those years are of enormous benefit to an organisation. The best service that we can do for girls and boys in
1094
school is to encourage them to defer sexual activity until they are physically, emotionally and financially mature, and to plan parenthood. That is the single strategy in sex education that will help both genders.
I look forward to when I am looked on not as a woman MP, but simply as an MP who happens to be a woman, and to when that is reflected throughout the employment spectrum and society.
5.31 pm
Sandra Osborne: I, too, welcome the debate because I have always regarded international women's day as a time of celebration. Indeed, I used to work for Women's Aid in Scotland, and our celebration lasted a whole week, so I am comfortable with carrying it on as long as possible.
Legislation on equal treatment and the promotion of policies to ensure the participation of all citizens in our society—women and men alike—so that they are represented equally in the economy, in decision making and in social, cultural and civil life as part of their human rights, have made a great deal of progress domestically, at a European level and on an international basis through the United Nations. The Scottish Parliament, although in its infancy, is making significant progress on new ways of working that are more relevant to women in the community.
There is still a gap, however. Not all the progress has been translated on a daily basis to produce equal rights between men and women. Women often do not enjoy equal rights in various spheres. Structural gender inequalities remain in place, fundamentally for the same reasons as always—the issue of power, where it lies, and how it is exercised in society in the private and public sectors.
Many of the struggles for equality that women have pursued, as the Minister said, until recently led to an extension of rights and responsibilities to women as if they were the same as men. Other hon. Members alluded to the fact that that created the burden of the dual role of women being left largely unquestioned and taken for granted. Ironically, that approach recently created the image of the emancipated woman who can work, look after a home and children and participate in the public world all at the same time. Many of us can do that, but is the situation ideal and what pressures does it bring?
The Minister also mentioned the sexual division of labour. She suggested that more progress has been made than I would perhaps recognise. I do not see in my daily life or in the lives of many of my female constituents men doing anything like their fair share of caring or domestic responsibilities. Although things have improved, there is a long way to go.
I welcome gender mainstreaming, an approach by the Government to acknowledge that women's concerns, needs and aspirations are taken into account and assume the same importance as men's concerns in the design and implementation of policies. In parallel with bringing issues that have a direct and indirect impact on the lives of women into the heart of policy making, we also need to take specific actions in favour of women to address the particular problems that the Minister and others mentioned. They include low pay, the national child care strategy, equal pay, women's representation and violence against women. I spent 16 years working in the field of

1095
domestic violence before I was elected, and the subject is very close to my heart. Violence against women is at the extreme of a continuum of oppression of women that is world wide and no respecter of class, colour or creed, as the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who is not in her place, has said. It has its roots in the male abuse of power.
It is welcome that the Government have played such a prominent part in addressing domestic violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) highlighted the possibility of keeping women in the home where they had been subjected to domestic violence. From my many years of experience, I believe that there is still a need, which will continue in the long term, for refuge provision as well. We cannot say that we are making real progress until we make sure that every woman and child escaping domestic violence has a refuge space to go to if that is required. We still have a long way to go in that respect.
It is not all down to Government or to mainstream political activity. Meaningful changes in women's lives are also dependent on social movements within civil society. Historically, women have relied on movements such as the women's movement—of which I am proud to regard myself as a member—to make advances and pressurise the Government to make advances for women, and I believe that that is still the case today.
There can be no more stark reminder of the difficulties that women have faced in trying to seek equality than in the lack, historically, of decent, affordable child care. The dearth of child care in this country, which was almost bottom of the European Union league table for many years, was an outrage and a disgrace. Cuts in public services over the years meant that nursery places were like gold and, when my children were young, people could not get a nursery place for love or money. At that stage, like many other women, I did not have the money.
The hon. Member for Meriden did not like to go over the history of her party in this regard, and who can blame her? However, I am old enough to remember the Tories' so-called "back to basics" campaign, which sought to dismantle the welfare state and create a welfare society based on women's unpaid labour. When we think of the effects of that policy on poor women and lone parents during that horrible time in our history, we may be cynical now about the Tories' new-found concerns about public services.
In those days, as the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) said, many women had to rely on state benefits or on partners who could be unreliable in supporting their partners and children. That is one of the reasons for the introduction of the Child Support Agency, although it turned out to be a disaster for a long time.
Child care has always been key to women's economic independence. That is why I particularly welcome the national child care strategy and the working families tax credit, which have benefited many in my constituency.
On low pay, again we have the worst record in the EU. I recognise that the Government are making progress and have plans to improve the situation. I do not think that a gender gap of 18 per cent. is good enough. There has been tremendous progress, but in this day and age such a gap should not exist.
1096
I support the recommendations of the equal pay taskforce in its report "Just Pay", commissioned by the Equal Opportunities Commission, for legislation to ensure that pay reviews are carried out. We will not get equal pay with voluntary arrangements. All the evidence shows that these things never happen in that way. I ask the Minister to comment on that.
I have strong views about women's representation and very much welcome the legislation that the Government have introduced with all-party support. I hope that, as the Minister stated, we will see real progress and specific measures to improve the situation. I have absolute disdain for the lost opportunity at the 2001 election in Scotland, when many former male Members of this House went to the Scottish Parliament and, with two exceptions, were replaced by men, when there was an ideal opportunity to make places for women.
I get frustrated about the amount of time that we must spend campaigning on this issue. I do not think that every woman wants to be a Member of Parliament. They are concerned about other issues and it would be good if we did not have to spend so much time dealing with it.
In conclusion, I mentioned the superwoman that we are all supposed to be in society now. I will treat the House to a part of my speech to the Scottish Labour group's Burns supper, which concerns the superwoman. whose typical day goes like this:
"She wakes up to her 2.6 children. They go downstairs and she gives them a nutritional breakfast which they eat, and they go off to school without once forgetting their lunch money. She goes upstairs and gets dressed in her £300 suit and goes off to her £100,000 job, which is both creative and socially useful. After work, she comes home and spends a wonderful hour relating to her children—because after all it's not the quantity but the quality of time that's important. She then prepares a gourmet dinner for her husband. They spend some time working on their meaningful relationship, after which they go upstairs where she has multiple orgasms until midnight."
I did not make that up—it was written by an American woman writer.
I prefer the words of Elaine C. Smith, a famous Scottish actress. Referring to the women curlers' success recently in winning a gold medal, she said:
"only Scottish women could be expert At brushing round a dead weight."
5.43 pm
Mr. Hugo Swire: All I can say after the speech of the hon. Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) is, in the words of the film, "I'll have what she's having!"
I am almost uniquely unqualified to take part in this debate on women and equality, according to my wife. She says that she will read the debate in Hansard, so I must mind what I say. For years, she has been trying to get me to read "The Female Eunuch" by Germaine Greer, and a book that is apparently called, "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". I have read neither of those books, so I cannot argue about what they might contribute to my greater understanding of the problem.
We have heard some interesting things in the debate, although I will temper what I am about to say by pointing out that when men speak on a matter that is so predominantly a woman's issue we can occasionally stray between humbug, cliché, condescension and being politically correct. There has been a fair amount of those in equal measure this afternoon.

1097
I am mindful of the time and that others wish to speak, but must refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who is no longer present, said about his Bill. I understood—it was a misunderstanding—that the legislation would mean that male-only private clubs would have to admit women, and vice versa. I understand now that that is not the case. The Bill deals with clubs that allow in both sexes and would ensure that they were treated equally. That came as something of a disappointment to me, as for quite a while I have been trying to gain access to Sanctuary—the all-women health club and spa. Joking apart, as the new president of the council of western Conservative clubs, which consists of 160 affiliated Conservative clubs in the west country, I assure my hon. Friend—or I would if he were in his place—that I shall ensure that there is equal treatment of both genders in those clubs, if that is within my remit.
Recently, I served with great interest on the Tax Credits Bill Standing Committee. Many of the arguments that we have heard this afternoon were rehearsed during the passage of that Bill—the working families tax credit, the replacement value of women and so on. As we know, many women are trapped at home with their children—as my wife is. The other day a poll showed men's assessment of the replacement value of their wives. It was a pathetically small amount—about £6,000 a year—although we all know that the real amount is well in excess of £60,000. For too long, some men—I hope I am not of their number—have taken for granted the enormous amount of work that women undertake in the home, bringing up children.
The Secretary of State referred to the work-family balance, which will be of increasing importance as we have more leisure time, greater flexibility in the workplace and more job sharing. However, I am concerned that the measures that are slowly being introduced will increase the general burden on small businesses through additional costs. We should bear that in mind.
I shall talk later about retirement and pensions, but I want briefly to refer to women in senior executive positions, where their numbers are woefully inadequate. Women in such positions are held up as the exception when they should be the norm.
I am surprised that we have not spent more time talking about education this afternoon, although if there is inequality in education, it affects males rather than females. Given that a larger proportion of women enter the teaching profession. the educational results are interesting. For example, in their last year of compulsory education, 55 per cent. of girls but only 44 per cent. of boys gain five or more A to C grades, or standard grades I to 3 at SCE—Scottish Certificate of Education.
We should debate the shortage of men in the teaching profession. It is argued that males underperform, especially in primary school, owing to the lack of men in the profession. I do not know whether that is true. I prefer the view of Chris Woodhead, the former head of Ofsted:
"What we need are teachers in primary schools who can teach, which means … keeping order. I can remember some women teachers who are remarkably good at keeping order … and there are plenty of men who aren't."
I wholeheartedly agree with that: teachers can be good or bad—regardless of sex. We should consider what we can learn from the fact that girls perform better in school.
1098
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) pointed out that we fail girls as regards sex education in schools. We should teach them about the loneliness of being single mothers—so that they do not end up feeling as lonely as the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who is the lone representative of her party here this afternoon.
As we have heard, women often suffer because they have to dip in and out of work. They need greater flexibility so that they can re-enter the work force after they have children. There is no doubt that, in the past, they were penalised for that. I hope that current and future legislation will recognise that. To some extent it has done so already.
We should also consider the type of work that women actually get. Too often, they are trapped in traditionally low-paid jobs in care homes—that is especially true in my constituency—or as shelf stackers. We have already heard about nurses. Women work as social workers, cleaners and so on. That is a very real problem.
I want to touch on a subject that I know my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) wants to speak about later: the equality of women in the armed forces. I was in the armed forces, and I think that women play an increasingly important role in them. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster that they should be there on their own merit, and there should be no dumbing down. We should certainly have extremely strong reservations about allowing women to operate on the front line in some areas of combat.
Mr. Joyce: It was perhaps a bit daft to use the phrase "dumbing down". When tests were introduced to see whether women were suitable for the new occupations within the armed services, some of the men failed the tests that they would need to pass to join the teams, especially in the Royal Artillery, where they would have to lift heavy equipment. It was the teams, not the individuals that did the tasks. It is not a case of dumbing down or lowering standards.
Mr. Swire: In the interests of gender solidarity, I will accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism. I meant no disrespect to women who are in or who want to join the armed forces. In fact, I said exactly the reverse: that no allowances should be made, because both men's and women's lives can be at risk in combat.
I come from a fairly liberal arts background; I genuinely believe that being a woman has never been a hindrance. In fact, the boss at the last company I worked for was a woman. I will not talk about her now—she is involved in a rather high-profile court case in New York.
It is interesting to see how women are emerging in the arts. Historically, the great classical musicians were men, but now the great pop musicians, who are perhaps replacing them—the girl bands and icons for the young such as Madonna and Kylie Minogue—are women. None of the impressionists and very few portraitists in the 18th and 19th centuries were female, but now there is thriving participation of women and some of our best contemporary artists are female. Women occupy many of the most important posts in arts administration, too.

1099
In literature, we had the Brontë sisters and Jane Austen, and now we have A. S. Byatt, P. D. James, and of course J. K. Rowling—all icons in their own way to women in the workplace.
Mr. David Cameron: My hon. Friend has not mentioned sport. He may be interested to know that the trainer of the winner of the Cheltenham gold cup this afternoon is a woman, Henrietta Knight, who lives quite near my constituency in Oxfordshire. In many such fields, women are beating men at their own game.
Mr. Swire: I have met that trainer and I hope that my hon. Friend has profited personally from his close association with her this afternoon. Let us not forget the women's curling team who had such success at the recent winter Olympics: shining icons to all women who may want to take up that sport.
Our actresses are, I would suggest, way ahead of our actors. Younger women need role models, but not enough women are at the top of their professions, apart from those I have mentioned.
I mentioned earlier the excellent woman leader of the Conservative group on Devon county council, and Conservative-controlled East Devon council also has an excellent woman leader, but there is no doubt that there are not enough women in politics. I recently entertained two Members of the Youth Parliament, both of whom were girls from Exmouth, and they were pretty unimpressed by what they saw here. They thought that we had very little relevance to their everyday lives, particularly, I suspect, because there were very few women role models on whom they could base their ambitions.
I am against all-women shortlists. I recognise that we have a problem in our society and that we must address it. I know that we will address it, and I welcome that. However, there are ways of achieving that other than all-women shortlists. I very much hope to welcome, after the next general election, at least another 150 female Conservative colleagues.
5.54 pm
Julie Morgan: I am pleased to contribute to our debate; I am glad that it has been restored after a lapse of a few years. It is important to celebrate women's hard work in countries all over the world; international women's day provides an opportunity to do so, and I am pleased that we are having a debate on women and equality.
The Government have made considerable improvements in the position of women. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women listed many achievements, including the minimum wage, the record rise in child benefit, the extension of maternity leave and the introduction of parental leave. The Government have put the work-life balance on the political agenda for the first time and given it tremendous prominence in their planning; I applaud their achievement. I am particularly glad that they have promoted and encouraged breastfeeding, as it has known health benefits for women and babies, both here and in other countries, where many babies die because they are not breast-fed.
1100
We have made progress in the House and the country at large in recognising the importance of breastfeeding, but there is still a long way to go before it becomes culturally acceptable, both here and among the wider public, and people are open and relaxed about it. That is essential if we are to encourage young women to breastfeed and not discriminate against working women who breastfeed, as European Union and health and safety regulations recommend. I hope that we can have a fuller debate on the subject in future.
My right hon. Friend referred to the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002. the success of which we are all celebrating today. I am sure that it will mean that eventually, on the Labour Benches, there will be equal numbers of men and women MPs. As hon. Members know, the Act is permissive, so it is up to political parties to use the power that it provides. In an intervention, I said that at the Welsh Labour party conference at Llandudno next week, we will vote on whether to introduce all-women shortlists for a number of vacant seats in next year's elections to the Welsh Assembly. My right hon. Friend confirmed that that will be the first action taken by a political party under the Act. I look forward to the conference, where I shall strongly support the motion to introduce all-women shortlists; I am hopeful of its success.
The Assembly has already got a high number of women; 41 per cent. of its Members are women, which is the second highest percentage in European legislatures. It is important to maintain those numbers and the mechanism of all-women shortlists, if approved by the conference, will enable us to do so. I shall therefore support the motion, and the Government should be congratulated on enabling it to be introduced.
It is easy to establish new arrangements in new institutions; when the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were set up, it was easy to introduce good practices such as twinning mechanisms. Those mechanisms are much more difficult to introduce in an establishment such as the Westminster Parliament, which has been in existence for a long time. The Government of Wales Act 1998 includes a section on equal opportunities, which places a statutory duty on the Welsh Assembly to
"make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that its business is conducted with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people."
I should like to pay tribute again to the hard work of Val Feld, an Assembly Member who died last year; she made an enormous effort to ensure, when director of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Wales, that such a section was in the Act.
In the United Kingdom, that clause has a unique scope, covering all the Assembly's functions, including economic development, planning, education and social services. It also applies to everybody in Wales for whom the Assembly provides a service. It is a very important clause. The Assembly's Standing Committee on Equality of Opportunity was set up to ensure that that duty is adhered to. It publishes a report each year, which also deals with how the Assembly runs its business in relation to equal opportunities.
I call on the Government to consider introducing a statutory equality duty. That would help focus our attention on improving equal opportunities in the services that we as a Government provide. We should also create

1101
an equal opportunities Select Committee, which could monitor the work of the different Departments and press for the advancement of equal opportunities issues in the House. The section in the Government of Wales Act to which I referred is unique, and we would benefit by extending such a duty to this House.
It is probably easier for a body such as the Assembly—it is responsible for only 3 million people and has only 60 Members—to work in the cross-cutting way in which one must work to achieve equal opportunities. It is worth putting on the record some of the things that the Assembly has already achieved. It has introduced mandatory equal opportunities training for all its 3,500 staff, which is a big step forward. As a councillor, I found it extremely difficult to introduce such training for all council staff.
As a result of changes in recruitment practice, internal civil service recruitment will be replaced by open public recruitment for advertised posts. Independent research into the Assembly's achievements in its fairly short life has acknowledged the fact that modest progress has been made. Such progress has been attributed to the statutory duty that informs everything that the Assembly does. I ask the Minister to comment on whether such a statutory duty could be introduced in Westminster, along with an equal opportunities Select Committee.
I want to refer briefly to the pay gap, which has been discussed at length today. The Assembly is trying to tackle the pay gap, together with the Equal Opportunities Commission and the TUC. I worked closely with those organisations on equal opportunity in Wales, and I pay tribute to them. In November last year, the EOC commissioned the first in-depth study of the pay gap in Wales. The study, which was carried out by Swansea university. showed that women's hourly earnings in Wales are 13 per cent. lower than men's. The gap is smaller than the corresponding difference in England because men's pay is lower in Wales.
For part-time workers, the situation in Wales is even worse, although the same can be said of other regions. The difference in average hourly pay between a woman working part-time and a man working full-time is 36 per cent., although the figure does vary across Wales. There are many reasons for that difference, and many proposals could be introduced to improve the situation, particularly in relation to child care. We in Wales have made considerable progress on child care. Many more places are available, but we need to consider the expense. Research has shown that those extra places are perhaps not accessible to families who are less well-off.
We must also consider working with organisations to persuade them to examine their practices and the pay gap. Public organisations in particular should review their pay systems, and in that regard the Assembly has taken a lead. It has reviewed its pay systems and established a three-year plan for closing the pay gap. In taking the lead in Wales, it is encouraging other organisations to do the same.
In Wales, enormous progress has been made and distinct and measurable improvements achieved. There is a long way to go, but with this Government working in collaboration with the Assembly in Wales, we will continue to make tremendous progress and give women their rightful place in society.
6.5 pm
Patrick Mercer: I hope that the hon. Ladies on the Government Benches will forgive the voters of Newark and Retford for taking an equal opportunities approach at the general election and reducing their number by one. I hope that that will not be held against me.
The other day I was in the village of Elkesley, which is one of the more remote villages between Newark and Retford. I spoke to a young lady who was finishing school and about to take her A-levels. I asked her what she intended to go on to do. She said that she was going to university, where she would be sponsored by her employers. That struck me as very sensible and I asked her who they were. She said they were the Royal Navy. I asked what she intended to do in the Royal Navy. She said that she was hoping to go to Dartford to be commissioned and then to become a seaman officer. I thought that that was marvellous. My service experience started at a time when a very different approach was taken to women. I hope that Miss Shani Dyer has a successful and rewarding career on a completely equal footing with the men of the Royal Navy.
I was surprised to read this morning in The Times an article entitled "Army gets 'bitch TV' treatment". Hon. Members may not know what bitch television is, but I shall enlighten them. The article states:
"The team behind both the football drama and Bad Girls, set in a women's prison, are working on Bombshell, a racy spin on life in uniform … Shed Productions … has secured the co-operation of the MoD for the series, which will make Soldier, Soldier appear staid. Bombshell will show women fighting for equality on the front line and recruits who want their share of sex and drugs."
Life has changed. What I saw in the armed forces was very different and I hope and trust that things remain the same.
I was at Sandhurst in 1974 and 1975, with no ladies present at all. They were trained elsewhere—at their own college just up the road. We frequently tried to invade it, without much success. I then joined an infantry battalion on operations in Northern Ireland, again with no women present. By the time I left the Army, female naval ratings were serving at sea on board warships and some 70 per cent. of the jobs in the Army were available to women. The Women's Royal Army Corps had ceased to exist and women were being badged to combat arms, and to all arms of the service, in one of the most sensible, pragmatic and reasonable approaches to equality of employment across the spectrum.
My first introduction to that approach was when I was picked to be my battalion's intelligence officer in Belfast in 1982. I inherited, much to the envy of my colleagues, a platoon of the Women's Royal Navy Service. Much ribald comment was made about those women, but in the difficult, cramped and dangerous conditions of Belfast in the 1980s they proved to be more than equal to the task. I hope that it will not sound patronising—it is not meant to—if I say that those women had a particular gift for picking up intelligence matter, processing it and coming up with conclusions that men would not have the eye for detail to produce. It was also reassuring to be driven in plain clothes in a civilian car by an armed and dangerous Wren, who—I hope—gave the opposition every impression of normal life. I am not sure that that was always the case.

1103
Let us consider the example of foreign armies. The Israelis have long had an integrated policy for their women soldiers, sailors and airmen. It has not worked in their combat arms. The Serbs, whom I have seen at close quarters several times in the past few years, had women soldiers in the front line, acting as signallers, drivers and couriers. They often worked behind enemy lines but not actually in the firing line. I suppose that female suicide bombers are an example of total equal opportunities. There is no form of more dangerous combat activity and, mercifully, it is unlikely to happen in this country.
It is interesting to see how women have been absorbed into the Army. Most of the combat arms accept women—the Royal Signallers, the Royal Engineers and the Royal Artillery. I come back to a point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce)—that the Royal Artillery has been particularly successful. No soldiers are further forward on the battle line than the Royal Artillery. Women in the Royal Artillery serve right up at the front in forward observation units, but not necessarily on the gun line. I shall return to that in a moment, and some Labour Members may want to comment on that point. Women are also in the Army Air Corps flying combat helicopters.
I draw the House's attention to one category of women who give the lie to many of the armed forces' policies. Although to the best of my knowledge there are no women in the Special Air Service, there are certainly women serving on special duties. Without going into details, those special duties are restricted entirely to operations in Northern Ireland and in similar theatres elsewhere. A very small number of those women, who are committed on a daily basis to combat duties, have been in action and have been decorated for their gallantry by the Queen. However, I emphasise that they are a very small number of women and a very special group. It is therefore probably right that units such as the infantry and the Royal Armoured Corps do not accept women into their ranks.
I was visited by representatives of the Equal Opportunities Commission when I was serving with a Warrior battalion—an armoured personnel carrier-equipped battalion. The commission representatives were allowed to sit in the back of a Warrior during nuclear, biological and chemical warfare training. The vehicle was closed down in total darkness and there was no movement outside the vehicle for as long as the attack lasted. After a couple of hours, two of the lady members of the team said, "We'd like to go to the loo, please." The answer was, "Please carry on." The ladies reached to get out of the vehicle, which, clearly, they could not do in those conditions. They replied, "Sorry, we don't understand." They were then told, "There's a chemical lavatory in the back of the vehicle." There were seven bodies in the back of that vehicle, two of whom were women. One can imagine that seven hairy infantrymen carrying out nature's functions would be unpleasant enough—I dare say that if the whole crew had been female it would have been pleasant enough—but those ladies blanched and never returned to the question of women trying to serve in infantry units. I would make exactly the same points about tank crews and other armoured vehicle crews. There are simple, straightforward limits.
1104
I was involved in gender-free testing while I was still serving, and I think that a Labour Member was also involved. There is a tendency in the Army to be concerned that women will work their wiles and end up in the Parachute Regiment, in the Royal Marines or manning a general purpose machine gun. We heard earlier about the test to lift a Royal Artillery shell for an AS90 self-propelled gun. That test is almost impossible to achieve—possible but difficult—for a very fit and well-trained man. It was designed to keep women away from the gun line.
The Army employs a full colonel on a salary of more than £60,000 a year to make sure that these issues are properly considered and properly treated. My experience—and possibly that of other hon. Members—is that women do not want to serve in those capacities. Very few women wish to be in the infantry, although some do. Very few women want to become paratroopers, although some do. The armed forces are guilty of being terribly narrow minded about an issue that is not an issue.
We have seen women taking their right and proper place in the armed forces—well forward, doing tremendous jobs and bearing the brunt of operations at home and abroad. I suggest that we should honour them for that, treat them with total equality and understand that they serve just as properly and just as gallantly as men.
6.14 pm
Laura Moffatt: It always shocks me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to realise that only 252 of the 4,500 Members of Parliament elected since 1918 have been women.
I have listened with interest to the debate and to the comments made by my sisters and colleagues on the Labour Benches, and by other hon. Members. I am never ashamed of using the word "sisters", because that is what we are. We celebrate the fact that we are women taking part in a process that we hope makes a difference for women outside the House.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said that the Conservative party would support all-women shortlists in an attempt to get more women into Parliament, but I could see the expressions on the faces of her—mostly male—colleagues behind her. I have a strange feeling that some of them will not share my celebrations at the announcement.
Andrew Selous: I think that the hon. Lady may be mistaken. I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) to say that the Conservative party would look carefully at its selection process, to ensure that women have the best possible chances. I do not believe that we have endorsed all-women shortlists.
Laura Moffatt: What a surprise. I think that we will let that statement lie on the Floor of the House.
Last weekend, many hon. Members will, like me, have celebrated international women's day and mothering Sunday with women in their communities. We got into the roots of our communities, and found out the difficulties and needs of women there. I attended my community centre to enjoy the celebrations, to send cards and chocolate, and to talk about what it means to be a women under a Labour Government. The women to

1105
whom I spoke were very pleased about much of what has been done. For example, the working families tax credit has transformed my neighbourhood, and the child care element of the credit has done an enormous amount for women in the south-east.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will raise the lower limit to allow more women access to child care. That will get them where they want to be—out in the work place, where they can make their way in the world, while their children get the first-class care that they enjoy so much. Women Members of Parliament must represent women and ensure that women's needs are brought to the fore. I have no doubt that lots of male hon. Members will co-operate and support us.
I have never been ashamed of the fact that I was selected through an all-women shortlist. I am proud of that because men dominate my constituency Labour party, and they were the ones who voted for an all-women shortlist. They wanted to be part of what happened in 1997 in this House, and to be able to say that they had assisted women to increase female representation here. I salute them for that, and for the fact that they stuck by the decision. People must not think that women feel like second-class Members of Parliament, because we certainly do not.
Women continue to face problems, such as with the Child Support Agency. We are beginning to put things right, but the list of difficulties remains long. Many of them have been dealt with well in today's debate, but I want to turn to international matters. It is easy to talk about great international affairs, such as the catastrophe in Afghanistan, but we must remember that, in recent history, women used to be able to be elected to the Parliament there. Such women are supported by women in this Parliament, particularly on this side of the House. It is important that we bring those issues to the fore.
We have talked about a woman in Nigeria who is to undergo a stoning. We hope that the practice is in abeyance, but as an international issue, it is still much to the fore. Women's greatest difficulties arise when there is no news for them, and when things are happening off the radar screen of Members of Parliament. That is why I want to say something about the work of the National Council of the Resistance of Iran. Its women's committee has worked tirelessly, and many hon. Members will have been approached by it. Its work is difficult because there is never anything different to say; they just have to keep ploughing on, trying to get our support and bringing to our attention all the difficulties that women experience in Iran today.
We have talked about one Nigerian woman, and that is bad enough, but since that case, four women in Iran have died from stoning. We have said and done nothing about that. That is why it is so important that the women's committee works tirelessly with us. Today, a very successful event in the House of Commons tried to bring those issues to the fore on the front burner. We must understand that in Iran executions continue in their thousands, as do public floggings, which can be meted out just because a woman is not wearing her head-dress properly or behaving as a good Muslim woman should.
We have been talking about equality. Let us take an example of inequality in Iran. Men who have been condemned to death by stoning are buried up to their waist
1106
first, and there is a small chance of them escaping. When women are stoned to death, they are buried up to their armpits so that their breasts are not damaged, but of course they have no chance of escaping that terrible death. These are the issues that we need to bring to the attention of all Parliaments in the world.
Suicide is an enormous issue in Iran. Many women kill themselves because they have few or no opportunities. Many are educated, and some can take advantage of their education, but 64 per cent. of women with a degree cannot use it in any way to assist their country. Ensuring that women can play their part is not simply about soft, equality issues; it is about hard economics, health and educating our children.
This is probably the most important thing that we will ever discuss, and I sincerely hope that we continue to hold this debate in future years. It is important that we are able to raise these issues and take them forward. I am glad that we can celebrate improvements for women and press for further gains. We must make sure that we make life better for women around the world.
6.23 pm
Andrew Selous: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, not only on behalf of all my women constituents but, from a personal point of view, because I have three young daughters. I want them to grow up in a world where they have every possible opportunity to fulfil all their potential in whatever way they choose. It is absolutely right that they should have equal opportunities in employment, and it is worrying to learn of the gender gap in pay.
I was particularly struck by the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) of new graduates entering employment. Even at that early stage, before female graduates have taken on any family responsibilities, there is already a gender pay gap. That is unacceptable. I hope that it will increasingly be phased out as employers realise that it is not acceptable at the start of the 21st century.
I pay tribute to various prominent female members of my community. There are notably three who have an especially distinguished record in local government. Councillor Mary Biswell is the mayor of Dunstable. She has a distinguished record, notably in raising money for charity, for many good causes.
Councillor Pat Staples is the chairman of South Bedfordshire district council. She, too, is an extremely hard-working community councillor, and well loved throughout the district. Finally, there is Councillor Angela Roberts, the deputy leader of Bedfordshire county council. She is an inspiration to all her colleagues on the council. These women are valued and prominent members of my local community who contribute wholeheartedly to local government throughout Bedfordshire.
I listened carefully to the way in which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry introduced the debate. I am pleased that I largely agreed with many of her points. I listened carefully when she talked about what women wanted. I am pleased that she said that it was not for the Government to dictate to or impose a particular lifestyle on women, or men.
It is important that we have a genuine respect for the choices that women make at different stages of their lives and careers. I want a level playing field, so that there is real choice for women when they consider having children in terms of going to work and returning to work.

1107
I commend to the House the considerable work of Dir. Catherine Hakim, who is a senior research fellow in sociology at the London school of economics. Her conclusions are that women split into three broad categories, which are roughly as follows.
About 20 per cent. of women prefer to have a largely home-centred lifestyle. That is where they are fulfilled. They choose to do that, and should be supported and encouraged in that important work.
About another 20 per cent. of women wish to have an entirely work-centred lifestyle. They will commit themselves entirely to a career. Often they will stay with one employer for a long time and not enter into responsibilities as a parent.
The vast majority of women—the remaining 60 per cent.—are what Dr. Hakim described as having an "adaptive preference". They will want to go between the worlds of home and work at various stages in their career. It is important that we bear that in mind. We should not think that there is only one model for women in the work force.
These findings from the academic world were born out by a survey in 2001 that was undertaken by the magazine Top Sante, which consulted many young women which I shall quote briefly. It found that only 4 per cent. of working women with a baby or young child would choose, if they had the choice, to work full-time. Thirty-one per cent. of respondents said that they would prefer to have a part-time career job share. Twenty-two per cent. said that they would prefer to work from home or set up their own business.
Significantly, 43 per cent. of respondents said that they would like to be full-time mums, if they had the opportunity. Commenting on the survey, Juliette Kellow, the editor of Top Sante, said:
"The Government wants to encourage as many women as possible into full-time work, but this is blatantly not what most women want, especially those with families. Working full time for most women with families is a major problem, physically, emotionally and mentally. This survey shows that it is also extremely damaging to family life and relationships."
I do not think that it is up to Members of Parliament or the Government to be prescriptive about how women choose to balance their responsibilities, but it is important that we bear in mind the vast range of choices and personal preferences.
I have a worry with regard to the European dimension. I am concerned that the European Commission is concentrating only on the full-time employment model in respect of women. There is evidence that Allan Larsson, a former director general of Directorate-General V, has pushed the European Commission in that direction. On a recent visit to Brussels with the Select Committee on. Work and Pensions, I was concerned that the overwhelming preference seemed to be to increase women's participation in the work force. Various targets were set out in that regard, but it did not seem that sufficient account was taken of different choices.
Returning to the situation at home, I have a concern about the child care tax credit, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt). Although I welcome the introduction of the tax credit and the Government's underlying intention, two specific concerns
1108
have still not been addressed. First, two-parent single-earner families are excluded, so there is an implied reduction of the significance of parents who choose to stay at home and look after their children. Secondly, the credit is awarded only for registered child care outside the home, but we know that vast numbers of people prefer informal child care arrangements. About 44 per cent. of manual workers with children have some grandparent involvement and many others are happy for friends or family—often sisters and aunts—to be involved in looking after their children in their own homes, but such care is outside the scope of the child care tax credit. I ask the Minister to consider again whether something could be done to extend the scope of a measure that is generally good.
Internationally, it is interesting to see how different European countries have handled such measures. For example, Finland has a home care allowance that is paid to some 75 per cent. of women who have children under three, paying up to 40 per cent. of the average wage. The allowance gives women real choice in the early years of their children's lives about whether they want to stay at home to look after them or go out to work. In Norway, the same system is in place for all women with children under two. France has the allocation parental d'education, which is paid after the birth of the second child until that child is three. So three major European industrial countries are taking an approach that is significantly different from that of the UK to the care of children in their early years in terms of giving women a choice.
When we consider the difference between tax systems in Europe, we see that in Germany, there is a much greater emphasis on transferable tax allowances. There is evidence that many women appreciate that approach as it gives them a greater choice when children come along. The additional tax allowances in Germany provide support for families in the early years of children's lives, which is much appreciated. France has income splitting—a recognition of how many mouths one salary has to feed. Evidence from France shows that that scheme is viewed by women as a significant recognition of their right to have a choice.
We have heard much about how child care is important in giving women the ability to enter the work force. I should like women who do not choose to use child care to have the benefit of longer career breaks so that when they return to work after having looked after their children for a number of years they can get back into the stride of their careers. Retraining will obviously be an important part of that. I was particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) introduced the family scholarship scheme in the last Parliament to help with the retraining of women coming back into the labour force after having taken time out to look after children or elderly or dependent relatives.
We have heard that the poorest pensioners are often the oldest ones—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
6.36 pm
Linda Perham: I realised what a long way women still had to go to achieve equality during the year that I was the first woman Labour mayor of my

1109
borough of Redbridge. Not only was it often assumed that I was the mayoress, but at a function arranged by a national charity, the president asked me what a housewife like me was doing being a mayor. I spluttered something about being a professional person, to which he asked what a professional housewife like me was doing being a mayor.
That leads me to the outstanding work of women in their local communities, particularly in local government, which formed part of my route to this place. Women are high achievers on their local councils and good examples in their local communities. I particularly want to pay tribute to Councillor Liz Pearce, who, regrettably, is standing down in May. She was the first woman leader of the Labour group and of the council, at a time when her sons were two and four years old, so she had a lot to cope with. I pay tribute to her tireless work for the people of the borough during her time on the council.
We need more women councillors. My own authority has managed to achieve only a fifth of its membership being female as far back as I can remember and we need to bring more women into local government.
The contribution of women to the wider community through voluntary organisations is also worthy of recognition and celebration. Through work that I did on behalf of the National Childbirth Trust I became a member of the Redbridge community health council, where I met Eileen Gordon, the former Member of Parliament for Romford, who represented her CHC in Havering. She did outstanding work on health issues, which she continued through her work on the Select Committee on Health.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Linda Perham: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
During my involvement with local community issues I have never ceased to support the work of women locally as magistrates, school governors and chairs of strategic health authorities. They make up about half their appointees, but that is not enough.
I want briefly to mention the Women's library which took over from the Fawcett library. I worked there for many years. It has just moved into splendid premises opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at the end of January. I recommend a visit to see the exhibition "Cooks and Campaigners", which has items selected by prominent women in public life, including Cherie Booth, Kate Adie, Mary Quant and others.
I am pleased that the Government support the aim of 45 to 50 per cent. of public appointments made by central Government being filled by women by the end of 2005.
Others have spoken about the Government's achievements. In particular I pay tribute to the Government for introducing the national minimum wage. I also commend my union, Unison, on its campaign on equal pay for women and its championing of public services. However, I am disappointed that the Government will not introduce the EU directive on equal treatment in employment until 2006. My hon. Friend the Minister knows my views on that, and she has addressed the all-party group on ageing and older people.
1110
I should like briefly to mention Redbridge women's day, which took place last Saturday and was addressed by the Minister for Lifelong Learning. Last year, we were addressed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. It was an interesting day, with a laughter therapy session and a tea bar run by men, and it was attended by more than 100 women.
I finish where I started—by praising the work of women in local communities. Some want to remain as carers; some want to go on to local, national and international politics. Much work is needed to improve women's lives. The debate is well timed in the week following international women's day, but it is not only on that day, or during this week, that we should acknowledge, celebrate and shout about women's achievements—we should do it every day.
6.40 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I am glad that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) was able to speak in this excellent debate, to which 12 Members, apart from the Front-Bench spokesmen, contributed. For the Minister for Women and me the debate is a case of deja vu—certainly, I feel as if I have been here before.

Many good things were said in the debate, but sadly many good things were unsaid because we did not have enough time. I hope that the Minister agrees that next time the debate should take place not only in Government time, but on a day when there are not three statements and we can do justice to the contributions of all hon. Members who wish to take part. I know that that is beyond the right hon. Lady's remit, but she will appreciate that I am making the point on her behalf through the usual channels and to the powers that be that we should, at least on one day of the year, have a decent chance of a proper debate.
The Minister opened the debate extremely well with some fine examples from her constituency. If I had the luxury of more time, I would do the same. She took us on a trip down memory lane to the 1950s. I cannot say that I can join her there, but I knew what she meant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who had to leave the Chamber to look after her child before attending functions tonight, would have wanted, like me, to say that the Minister was uncharitable in failing to acknowledge anything that the Conservative party did for women when it was in government. A Conservative Government introduced equal pay legislation in 1983 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1986, and I am proud that a Conservative Government introduced independent taxation. I hoped that the Minister would be charitable enough to acknowledge that the Conservative party is as eager as she is to attain equality—certainly, equality of opportunity—for women, even if we do not always go about it in the same way.
I am disappointed that in the 45 minutes that the Minister took to make her speech, much of which I agreed with, she spent so much time on the domestic situation and did not deal more with the position of women in other countries. There is a commonality of feeling in the House that although there are furrows to plough as regards equality in this country, true inequality exists in other countries, and we as women must pay attention to that. That is why I was delighted when my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) praised the non-governmental

1111
organisations and women's organisations that help us in our work here and assist women throughout the world. She gave a well rounded speech that concentrated on issues in the United Kingdom and the problems of women in the developing world.
My hon. Friend was followed by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who spoke up well for women auxiliary workers. I agree with her on that subject. She asked for more help from the Government—I hope that the Minister will respond to her request—and made some good points on encouraging companies to give women opportunities for training and promotion. She also made some interesting points on drug testing and women's health. I was surprised to hear what she was saying and I hope that the Minister will have time to comment on it. I shall understand if she does not have time to comment on all the points that have been made, in which case I hope that she will respond in writing.
The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) gave a solo performance from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. She was disappointed in the lack of support from her party—as were we. We were not fooled by the stage-managed appearance of a supporting cast throughout her speech.
I am sorry that I left the Chamber momentarily and did not hear the full speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). I have great admiration for the work that she has done on arranged marriages. Her views on that are shared across the House. I have discussed the matter with my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, and if the hon. Lady introduces an early-day motion on the Nigerian case that she mentioned, we would be pleased to look at it and join her in signing it if it is suitable.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) discussed his Bill and a Bill in another place. He raised the subject of labour clubs, which seem to be a source of annoyance to some Labour Members. The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) brought up the heady issue of trafficking of women and children and the sobering facts on violence against women. She looked al. the subject of reproductive health in a way that we should not forget affects all of us. Female genital mutilation is still one of the most abhorrent practices in the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) made a refreshing contribution. She talked realistically and highlighted the fundamental difference between men and women. She had a useful gender-blind suggestion for our problem of all-women shortlists and brought to the forefront the issues on unmarried pregnancies. We share views on that subject across the Chamber, as we all see in our surgeries single mothers who are left literally holding the baby. My hon. Friend talks common sense and echoes the feelings of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) was a brief voice from Scotland in this international women's day debate. She is a superwoman, and she apologised for having to leave for a flight to Scotland. Her speech was followed by that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). We appreciated his undertakings to look into the operation of the Conservative clubs that are
1112
within his bailiwick. He made some interesting points on education and bemoaned the shortage of men in the teaching profession and the underperformance of boys in the education system. That, too, concerns us all.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) was our voice from Wales. She spoke about the advantages of equal opportunities in Wales. I was interested to hear her suggestion about an equal opportunities Select Committee and I hope that the Minister will have time to touch on that. I am not entirely sure whether I agree with the hon. Lady, but it is certainly an interesting idea which we can explore.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) gave us a brief insight into the benefits of women in the armed services. I have seen at first hand the benefits of women in the armed services, in both Kosovo and Kuwait. When I was in Kuwait looking at our Tornado squadron, it was with great happiness, pride and surprise that I saw that the head of engineering was a blonde—and a blonde woman at that. She had the men firmly under control but, more importantly, she was the best engineer for that job. We can all be proud of that.
I am afraid that the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) got the views of Conservative Front-Bench Members wrong, but it was nice to hear her being so supportive of those who elected her. We are all supportive of our constituents who send us here; it is a great privilege to be in this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) picked out some distinguished local women and made some key points on taxation. I make no apology for reminding the House that independent taxation was introduced by a Conservative Government.
I really do not have time to go through my speech because I want to give the Minister time to reply. Let me return briefly to our domestic scene. I remind the Government that they have no reason for complacency or satisfaction from any achievements that they may have made to date, because where the public services are letting people down, women are being disproportionately affected.
Women do most of the caring in this country, and when care homes close and the health service underperforms, it is the women who are affected. Today, when the teachers are striking, it will be the women who have had to look after the children. Our police were out on the street yesterday, and it is the women who are worried about the safety of their communities. As women live longer, there is no doubt that the disaster in the pension fund will affect them disproportionately. The failure of this Government on public services will affect us all, and deliver enduring inequality, unless the Government put these things right.
I shall close by agreeing with a Labour Minister, the Minister for Lifelong Learning, who said recently:
"Voters felt that the quality of their lives was awful and nothing had changed since Labour came to office."
I certainly agree with the hon. Lady when she said that voters—traditional supporters of the Labour party—felt let down and ignored. We agree that we want equal opportunities for women, and that we want to see women succeed. I agree with the Minister for Lifelong Learning that this Labour Government should, and must, do better.
6.51 pm
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). We have crossed swords on a number of occasions, and it is good to be opposite her again today. I want to say to her—in the gentlest possible way, of course—that I do not remember there being any debates on these issues in Government time during the Conservative years.
Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady is mistaken. I led a debate held on international women's day, in Government time, when I was the Minister for Women.
Mrs. Roche: Very many congratulations to the hon. Lady. Of course, if that is the case, I can only congratulate her on holding such a debate once in 18 years. Absolutely fantastic! What a wonderful achievement.
A number of themes have run through the debate today, and I shall try to deal with them as quickly as I can. I apologise if I do not get to every point that was raised. The gender pay gap was mentioned by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), and the hon. Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). As part of my research, I have been looking to the past to see how far back the gender pay gap goes. In fact, I turned to Leviticus—the Old Testament is compulsory reading for me—in which Moses was told that a man of working age was worth 50 silver shekels, while a woman was worth only 30. So the gap goes right back to the beginning.
The hon. Member for Meriden was right to concentrate on the international issues. She put them into context well; it is important to talk about the work that has been undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Meriden and for East Devon (Mr. Swire), spoke about the dangers of placing new burdens on employers as a result of the Employment Bill. Our economy needs an increasingly high level of labour participation, involving both men and women. About one third of new mothers do not return to work. If just 10 per cent. of those mothers changed their mind as a result of the provisions in the Employment Bill, the total benefit to employers, through reduced recruitment costs, could be as much as £30 million. Of course, these measures are about social justice, but they are also about productivity and the health of our economy.
The hon. Member for Meriden and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) rightly spoke of the evils of trafficking, particularly trafficking of women and children. I take a great interest in that subject, and the United Kingdom is at the forefront of efforts to tackle the problem. We were one of the first countries to sign the United Nations protocol on the prevention and suppression of trafficking. Indeed, I had the great pleasure of signing it myself. We ought to encourage as many countries as possible to sign, and to act against this evil trade.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham rightly paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) for all her work in relation to forced marriages. What the Government are now doing reflects the strength of her campaign.
1114
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) spoke of the international dimension, referring to Afghanistan and other countries. We are very encouraged by the involvement of women in the Afghan Interim Administration. Many Members mentioned the past role of women in the highest ranks of Government in Afghanistan, and we should bear that in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough referred to career opportunities in public service for such people as teaching assistants and auxiliaries. We are committed to considering how we can further such opportunities. My excellent officials in the women and equality unit have produced a document called "Better Services, Better Working Lives", which gives practical advice in that regard.
The hon. Member for Romsey mentioned public appointments, which were also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham). I am conducting a series of regional seminars on the subject. We are working towards 50:50, and we expect women to hold 45 to 50 per cent. of jobs sponsored by most Departments by 2005. We have a great deal of work to do, but the House should be left in no doubt about our commitment to the eventual achievement of 50:50—and I should like to achieve it sooner rather than later.
Mr. Joyce: Do not women from ethnic minority backgrounds suffer from double discrimination? When considering the position of women in public life, should we not take account of both those dimensions?
Mrs. Roche: Absolutely. That is why we have been directing some of our efforts towards black and other ethnic minority women. I have had an excellent meeting with a number of such women, who hold some local public appointments but would like national careers.
Ms Dari Taylor: Will the Minister say something about blue collar work? Women in blue collar employment, including middle class women, often feel very excluded.
Mrs. Roche: I agree. We should ensure that there is a cross-section.
I accept the apology given by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), but may I correct him in one respect? I did not ask him to withdraw his Bill. We discussed together how it might be handled, as he had said that a member of his party might object to it. We support the Bill in principle, and I was delighted that the House of Lords gave the legislation a Second Reading. I am sure that the business managers will have noted the strength of feeling.
We have had a very good debate covering a number of issues. I strongly believe that equality is not merely an add-on. It is time for it to become mainstream, as was said by the hon. Member for Romsey. Effective legislation to prevent discrimination on grounds of race, age, sexual orientation or belief is absolutely necessary, and we will therefore be implementing directives on race and employment.

1115
If we want a modern Britain that is inclusive, we must have diversity. That is why equality is so important for social justice and productivity.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Fair Trade
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
7 pm
Ann McKechin: I welcome the opportunity to speak about international fair trade, especially as last week I had the honour to host the launch in the House of the annual Fairtrade fortnight. Although the concept of fair trade has been around for some time—and Fairtrade products are a familiar sight in the catering facilities of the House of Commons—it is recognised as crucial to the long sought aim of eradicating world poverty.
Let me give two quotations to support that argument. Mario Perez, a coffee grower from a Nicaraguan farmers' co-operative, said:
"Three years ago, we practically had to give away our harvest, we were losing money. We were in debt. But, under Fairtrade, we've paid off all our debts and we are proud".
Iddi Simba, Tanzania's Trade Minister commented at the World Trade Organisation talks last November on the unfair trading system that allows Governments in the north to continue subsidising their farmers while countries in the south have been forced to dismantle protective measures and open up their markets to cheap northern imports. He said:
"The wrong policy on agriculture might lose elections in France, but it loses lives in Africa".
Fairtrade started as a concept 13 years ago with coffee and has developed to include tea, cocoa, sugar, honey, chocolate, mangoes, orange juice and bananas. By re-connecting consumers with producers, it ensures that farmers get a fair price for their crops and the chance of a sustainable future. It provides dignity, not desperation; fair trade rather than exploitation. From humble beginnings in charity shops, it has now entered the mainstream retail trade with a sales growth of 40 per cent. in the last financial year. Fairtrade ground coffee has more than 7 per cent. of the United Kingdom ground coffee market, and the sale of Fairtrade products in the UK benefits at least 120,000 farmers and workers throughout the third world. The staff, business associates and volunteers who support the movement deserve enormous credit for successfully expanding within a competitive market and for providing hope for so many.
As yet Fairtrade is unfortunately only a small part of the answer, but it highlights the growing gulf between the rich and poor in our international trade systems. For many developing countries, coffee is the second most valuable commodity after oil and the most valuable agricultural commodity in world trade. The final price of a cup of cappuccino in a London coffee shop absorbs the costs of insurance, taxes, transportation, processing, packaging, marketing, storage and much more. However, of the £1.75 that might be charged, the grower will be lucky to receive the equivalent of just 5p.
Hidden behind that long and complicated journey is the collapse of coffee prices on the world market and the impact of that on both ends of the trade. Between 1994 and the end of 2001, the price of robusta coffee beans, which are used mainly in instant coffee, plummeted from around 180 cents a pound to just 17 cents, a 30-year low. Although it is estimated that the world coffee trade

1117
generates $60 billion in revenue, which is double the amount in the 1980s, the producing countries have retained only 10 per cent. of that compared with 30 per cent. in the 1980s. When the world price falls, it is the growers who suffer an immediate reduction in income, yet there has been no noticeable reduction in supermarket prices for coffee in the UK.
A recent Nestle report confirmed the sunny trading situation by stating:
"profits increased … and margins improved thanks to favourable commodity prices".
For many farmers, however, the collapse in prices means that they have failed to recover their production costs for several years running. That has had a devastating impact on an already precarious existence. Some have abandoned their land, and for those who opt to stay at home the lack of labour for crop maintenance reduces the quality and value of the coffee product, further depressing returns. So the vicious circle is complete.
The price is mainly set in the international coffee exchanges in New York and London, where future contracts are traded. Although the futures market is an important tool to protect traders from price changes and currency movements, the increasing importance of speculation means that the tail now wags the dog. Paper deals make up about 90 per cent. of the coffee trade, while only 10 per cent. is based on the sale of physical coffee.
The increasing concentration of the market means fewer bigger actors are now able strongly to influence the market. In short, the benefits of the market accrue to the traders in the north, while the costs fall in the main on the producers in the south.
For small farmers in the third world, the price of beans on our markets is only one of the factors undermining their ability to make a reasonable living. Whereas farmers in the European Union, Japan or north America are beneficiaries of Government subsidy schemes worth around $300 billion a year, developing countries have been forced to dismantle state-controlled agricultural support programmes as conditions of loans from financial and international institutions. To add to that huge imbalance, agricultural imports from the richer countries are often cheaper, because of these subsidies, than the same product grown locally. At one stroke, farmers in developing countries are deprived of the ability to compete effectively in their home or foreign markets.
Without the means to process or transport the crop to market, limited knowledge of the frequently changing world price and a debt-driven necessity to sell the coffee the moment it is ripe—when prices are at their lowest—small independent farmers find themselves in a very weak negotiating position. With only one major harvest a year, farmers are desperate for cash by the time the crop is ripe, and they are keen to sell at any price they can get.
Over the past 20 years, more coffee has been grown as countries have been advised to expand production, clear their debts and increase export returns. Private and World Bank incentives exist for new or expanded production, yet existing farmers need better prices or, at the very least, some stability so that they can plan. Alternatively, they could diversify into other crops, but growers are understandably averse to investing in crops for which no clear market exists, especially when it can take several years to generate an income. Coffee, for all its faults,
1118
is widely traded, and the local infrastructure exists to market the crop. Most other options are fraught with greater risks for very poor farmers.
In the past 15 years, the global coffee trade has been radically reshaped. The tearing up of international quota agreements and the advent of Vietnam as a major producer has led to a market awash with coffee. In the face of oversupply, the buyer became king and prices plummeted. Among the manufacturers in the UK, Nestle and Kraft Jacobs dominate the instant coffee market, taking 50 per cent. and 21 per cent. respectively, with the supermarkets' own brands coming a close third.
Three key developments have created that situation. First, following pressure from the United States Administration to liberalise trade, the international coffee agreement was abandoned in 1989. The pact between the coffee producing and consuming nations had in the past regulated the supply of beans via a quota system to the market, keeping prices relatively stable. Since then, it has been every man and woman for themselves, a situation that penalises the weakest. With little or no resources, poor producers need to sell their crop as soon as possible, just when the price is lowest. All efforts to re-establish price control have failed.
Secondly, the unprecedented rise of Vietnam as a coffee producer in the world market has turned a difficult situation into a crisis. Government investment and World Bank loans enabled it to triple its output between 1995 and 2000 to become the world's biggest producer of low-quality robusta beans, second only in overall volume to Brazil. Vietnam now accounts for 10 per cent. of total global coffee output.
Thirdly, encouraged by the World Bank and partner institutions to restructure their economies, producer nations disbanded national coffee policy organisations which had helped to plan production and acted as intermediaries between small farmers and the market. Subsidies for coffee production and agricultural services were reduced and private exporters took on the main role in a trading market. In many instances, taxes on coffee exports were cut. Initially, some farmers received more of the export price for their beans, but such gains soon disappeared as market prices collapsed. Coffee growers, large and small, were left exposed to the vagaries of the international market and its sudden price fluctuations.
Coffee has appeared to offer hard-pressed Governments a relatively easy means of generating hard currency, but over the past decade production has increased at twice the rate of consumption. Coffee faces competition from other drinks and, despite the recent successes of coffee shops in the United Kingdom, Europe and north America, demand looks unlikely to increase substantially.
Ultimately, large corporate consumers are the only ones to benefit from that oversupply. Since the 1980s, fewer players have taken a larger share of the business. Four multinational companies that account for 40 per cent. of worldwide retail sales dominate the sales. Similarly, six multinational export firms control 40 per cent. of the world's coffee market.
Lack of access to credit has become one of the key factors undermining the position of small farmers. Without loans at a low rate of interest, it is impossible for farmers to ensure adequate care of their crops, or to look after their families before the harvest. After harvest, the need to clear punitive debts leads them to sell their crop

1119
quickly and prices are at their lowest. Lack of market knowledge and finance conspire to reduce the quantity and quality of the crop. As the biggest traders recognise, without a market that delivers a decent life to producers, they cannot deliver a quality product to the market.
For farmers to benefit consistently from the sale of coffee, the buyer needs to pay a price that covers the cost of production and allows for investment. For a commercial roaster on the world market trying to compete with other companies paying low prices, offering a higher price is only possible if the consumer is prepared to pay more. So, the idea of a consumer label was born. If consumers wanted to be sure that farmers had received a fair deal for their coffee, they were invited to buy coffee—and later other products—that was guaranteed to meet criteria for terms of trade and price. The Fairtrade mark has been that guarantee.
Sadly, coffee farmers have now experienced several years of real suffering and hardship. Many are fighting for their survival. The vast majority are peasants in some of the world's poorest countries.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on their commitment in recent years to consider the social impact of business in developing countries and their own substantial backing for Fairtrade. The Prime Minister's recent visit to Ghana and his statements supporting Fairtrade were an important signal of that.
Fairtrade is now calling on local authorities throughout the UK to promote its products in their departments and within local communities. A growing list of towns and cities is participating in the project. I hope that the Government will also use their resources to strengthen their support by promoting the concept among their Departments and in their contacts with our society. I am pleased to note that the Minister's Department has arranged a conference later this month to discuss the development of Fairtrade products in the Caribbean islands and the export potential.
Clearly, it is vital that the Government should also use their influence in multilateral organisations—the European Union, the World Trade Organisation, the International Coffee Organisation, the United Nations conference on trade and development—to promote solutions that involve all the parties.
It is essential to stress the priority of eradicating poverty in line with the recognised international targets. It is also very important that the impact of the decisions and policies of those organisations is properly assessed to ensure that they act in such a manner as to reduce the gap between the richest and poorest in our world.
The role of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in policy making needs to be reviewed to ensure that it does not run counter to our development objectives. Too often, the implementation of structural adjustment and promotion of new coffee production in producer countries has been pursued without consideration of the costs in-country or elsewhere in the developing world. In particular, where analysis shows that it would exacerbate global oversupply, the Government should challenge investment in new coffee production, whether that originates from the World Bank, international development organisations or multinational companies.
1120
I ask the Government to encourage the few companies that dominate the trade to take a far more active role in recognising their social responsibilities and to formulate a sustainable response to the problems within the industry. Seeking to stabilise the market and improve returns for farmers is in their own interests, not only as good corporate citizens, but also to ensure the future of good quality supplies. Producer countries also need to work to increase domestic and regional consumption, decreasing their dependency on export sales.
The ICO, Oxfam and other organisations support plans to restore the balance in supply and demand, including the destruction of 5 per cent. of low quality coffee stocks. That badly needed short-term strategy would need to go hand in hand with compensation payments to farmers and assistance in developing alternative income-generating activities. That could be financed by the World Bank and multinational coffee companies. However, such programmes would require agreement between, and political commitment from, producer countries to ensure the maintenance of supply-control measures.
I urge the Government in their negotiations with the EU and the WTO to end immediately the escalating tariff systems that allow green coffee beans to enter Europe duty free, but slap tariffs on processed coffee. That prevents major players from adding value to their coffee, leaving them with little choice but to increase exports to balance their trade. Without tariff escalators, coffee producing countries could develop their processing industries. For too long, the countries of the north have hidden behind a wall of protectionism, and their undertakings to tackle that at the WTO conference last year were hardly watertight or reassuring to the countries of the south.
The Fairtrade Foundation has set a good example to our society of how we should work for a world in which every person, through their work, can sustain their family and community with dignity. The challenge is for the world's nations and the multinational companies to support this cause—not just with words but with action.
7.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on initiating the debate and on making a speech of passion and care about such an important issue. Fair trade is an idea whose time has come and it is an area where the individual can make an important difference. My hon. Friend helped to launch the Fairtrade fortnight in the House and she is passionately committed to fair trade products back home in Glasgow.
It is good that the House takes the issue seriously. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development gave an eloquent reply in a similar Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy).
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development visited my constituency at Christmas three or four years ago. Clare and I—that is the only time that I shall refer to her by name, as I know she should be given her ministerial title—donned Santa Claus hats and filled a handsome shopping basket with fair trade goods at Tesco. That brought us local publicity and encouraged south Yorkshire shoppers to follow my right hon. Friend's example.

1121
My private office at the Foreign Office and the cafeterias and stores of the Foreign Office, the House and other public bodies try to buy fair trade products—as many of us do personally. Consumers can make a huge impact.
As my ministerial responsibilities include many poor parts of the world, however, it is right for me to offer one or two cautionary words. My friends in the United States steel industry—members of the United Steel Workers of America—insist that all they are fighting for at present is fair trade. That means that exports from steel plants in my constituency could drop by as much as half, if the full tariffs are applied. Fair trade for one person may mean the loss of a job for another.
Supporters of the common agricultural policy in France, associated with the A'TTAC organisation, say loudly that they support fair trade. However, the subsidies given to farmers in the north—both in Europe and the United States—amount to more than the total combined gross domestic product of sub-Saharan Africa. Their idea of fair trade would not be that of the African or Latin American peasant, producer or small farmer who wants access to our food markets in Europe or the United States.
My hon. Friend referred to the problem of coffee, but before I deal with that we need to consider some definitions. People talk about fair trade; they refer to ethical trade, or what Anita Roddick calls "community trade". The Body Shop has perhaps done more than any other franchised chain in the world to put fair trade into practice, with a continuing relationship with producers. The phrase "community trade" comes from Miss Roddick's introduction to a little book called "The No-Nonsense Guide to Fair Trade", published by Verso, which I commend to the House even if I do not agree with all its analysis. It is a further example of how the movement is growing, and we should give as much support and energy to fair trade as we can.
My hon. Friend spoke about coffee. I have visited Chiapas in Mexico, a traditional coffee-growing area, and spoken to the people who have suffered from the collapse in coffee prices, which has been one of the contributory factors to the Zapatista movement. Again, in Colombia, the absence of good coffee-production mechanisms, defined through good prices, has encouraged peasants to produce other, far more noxious, substances. In Brazil, President Cardoso is concerned about United States protectionism preventing Brazilian agricultural produce from reaching the US market.
It is not just wicked multinationals or a rigged market that have caused the collapse in coffee prices that is at the real root of the problem. As my hon. Friend said, Vietnam has massively entered the world coffee market in the past decade by growing coffee for export. Vietnam is a very poor country, and it is not for me to say that its peasants do not have the right to enter the world market for coffee, even if that drives down prices for producers in Latin America.
I am not sure that it can be right for white politicians in the north to tell one group of workers or peasants anywhere in the south—Latin America, Africa or Asia—that they do not have the right to produce for sale, including export, what they feel best able to produce. I would not be happy, and I do not think that my hon. Friend would, if some external body said that international investment could not come to our constituencies, on the
1122
grounds that the products or services proposed to be made or offered for sale were already being made or exported from somewhere else. As a constituency Member, representing, like my hon. Friend, a poor part of our nation, I want my constituents to have the jingle of as much money as possible in their pockets, and that means, for them, the lowest possible prices.
Of course we accept that trade can have cruel side-effects, but the past quarter century of increasingly open trade has produced remarkable results. In 1970, 35 per cent. of all the people in developing countries were considered to be starving. In 1996, the figure had fallen to 18 per cent., and the United Nations expects it to have fallen to 12 per cent. by 2010. That is not far enough or fast enough, and the millennium development goal of halving world poverty by 2015 is an important one, but if we compare where we were 30 years ago with where we are now, we can see that trade has helped to make the world richer.
Between 1990 and 1999, adult illiteracy rates in low-income countries, for males aged 15 and above, decreased from 35 to 29 per cent., and the percentage for females aged 15 and above decreased from 56 to 48. Again, that is not far enough or fast enough, but without the material benefits that come with open trade, not even those reductions would have been possible.
In 1970, only 30 per cent. of people in the developing world had access to clean drinking water. Today, about 80 per cent. do. That is why we need to make the case for open trade. Yes, we need fairer trade, but we must not give the final say to the protectionists, the anti-globalisers and those who would restrict trade to the profit of existing groups only. That would only make our world poorer. It is also why the world trade agreement at Doha was important. The new three-year trade round launched at Doha now has a development agenda at its core. If we can succeed, as Doha suggested, in opening up trade in agricultural products and removing subsidies, defeating protectionism, developing countries stand to gain substantial commercial benefits under the negotiating mandate.
Today, rich countries pay out $1 billion a day to their farmers in agricultural subsidies. Annually, the figure is more than four times all the development assistance that goes to poor nations. Our Government are at the forefront of advocating the need for change; the Prime Minister has spoken eloquently in Latin America and at the Dispatch Box about the need to defeat protectionism and open up trade in different countries. Markets will be opened up, as was said at Doha,
"with a view to phasing all forms of export subsidies"
and trade-distorting domestic farm support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill spoke about the increasing trade in processed foods; it is not raw materials which arrive here, but processed foods, which have been value-added in developing countries. She is right, which is why the Government are taking the lead in every international forum in seeking to remove those tariffs. I invite her to persuade the anti-globalisation campaigners that open trade—the lifting of tariff barriers—is the right way forward.
We have been at the forefront of pushing the European Union to to agree the "everything but arms" initiative for duty-free and quota-free market access for the least developed countries; there are now phase-in periods for

1123
rice, sugar and bananas. I would like those phase-in periods to be shorter, but I must take on, intellectually and politically, colleagues on the left in France and Germany, and many people in this country, who oppose the removal of protectionist tariffs and the fight for free and open trade. Government support for fair trade therefore has to be seen in the context of their wider commitment to reforming national and international trade to benefit the poor. Examples of that commitment include Traidcraft Exchange; the Government support business agencies and individual enterprises in developing countries with exporting, wholesaling and importing facilities, linking them to commercial buyers in Europe. Countries that the Government are helping through that initiative include Malawi, Zambia, Tanzania, India, and the Philippines.
We are supporting the start-up costs of the Day Chocolate Company in Ghana; manufacturers and markets which trade fairly get access to markets in the United Kingdom. We are seeking to help southern producer groups to meet changing market demand and assist with sustainable improvements to their livelihoods. We want capacity-building programmes for business service providers in developing countries which link producer groups with domestic and international markets. We want to support marketing campaigns to promote the principles
1124
of fair trade, and we want to support further the fair trade labelling system. Labelling a product, whether a T-shirt or a packet of coffee, to show that it was produced in accordance with the values of fair or ethical trade is one of the best ways of making progress. We want independent auditing of the fair trade label to ensure the validity of its guarantee to consumers and to prevent it from being suborned by some of the companies to which my hon. Friend referred. Shoppers in Britain should be sure that when they pay a little extra, it will get to the producers.
I am therefore particularly proud that, in the past five years, the UK, alone of the G8 or the major EU countries, has increased its share of gross domestic product devoted to aid; it has increased by 45 per cent. That, if nothing else, is an achievement of which every Labour MP and the Labour Government can be truly proud.
The fair trade debate will continue. The House has my pledge and, I am sure, the pledge of all Ministers, that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development will co-operate closely and continue to promote fair trade in the context of open trade, so that all the world can grow and we can finally defeat the scourge of poverty which, as the Prime Minister said of Africa, is a scar on the conscience on the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
SIR MICHAEL LORD[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Health and Safety at Work
Motion made, and Question proposed, hat the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I welcome this afternoon's Adjournment debate on Government policy on health and safety at work, because it gives us the opportunity to discuss in depth the progress of various initiatives and the work that remains to be done.
The Government are committed to the health and safety of workers. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister launched "Revitalising Health and Safety" in June 2000, which successfully provided much needed impetus to improve occupational health and safety. The debate gives us an excellent opportunity to set out what progress has been made and examine health and safety policy that we need to prioritise and further promote.
Immediately following the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, there was a dramatic reduction in workplace fatalities and injuries, but, over recent years, health and safety improvements have levelled off. Every year, more than 1 million people are injured at work, and approximately 2 million suffer from ill health caused by work. Last year, tragically, 295 workers were killed due to work-related activity. That is unacceptable, and the human cost is immeasurable.
The economic burden of health and safety failures runs to almost £18 billion a year. Exposure to asbestos is one example, and I am pleased that my Department will use its pneumoconiosis compensation scheme to make payments to those affected by the recent Fairchild judgment. We are discussing with colleagues in other Departments what further action can be taken in the long term and we await the appeal to the House of Lords by those affected by the judgment.
Health and safety in the workplace is a central moral idea. Workers should be able to expect to return from work in the same condition that they went. However, action to improve health and safety is not only a moral imperative—the cost of which falls on employers—but an investment for employers.
I am aware of the competitive nature of business, but health and safety management must be a fundamental component of good business management, increasing productivity and, therefore, competitiveness. That is why the Government decided to increase the resources of the Health and Safety Executive. We provided an additional £63 million following the 1998 comprehensive spending review and added a further £45 million in December 2000.
The extra resources over the past three years have allowed for an overall increase in HSE staff, including 120 inspectors. I am sympathetic to many issues raised
316WH
in the Prospect campaign for additional resources, especially more front-line inspectors, but, for good reasons, demands on the HSE will always outstrip the resources that are immediately available. The Health and Safety Commission will bid for resources in the 2002 spending review and the Government will consider its proposals carefully.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: HSE funding is important, so I must tell my hon. Friend why I hope that he will look sympathetically at the need to increase resources. I recently dealt with a case in which the HSE would not directly investigate a gas explosion that injured three people in my constituency. Indeed, the whole community could have been killed had things gone more seriously wrong. The HSE said that it could not investigate because, among other things, it was investigating another gas explosion, which killed someone three miles away. That kind of rationing is not acceptable.
Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend makes a strong point about the need to investigate accidents and to inspect workplaces regularly. To some extent, those aims may be set against each other, and priorities should be set in a way that ensures that both are met. That is a question not only of ensuring that additional resources are available, but of giving priority to increasing the number of inspections. The HSE has done that. Indeed, the number of inspections has gone up to cover 10 per cent. of workplaces. The priority programme introduced by the HSE provides for resources to be concentrated in a way that enhances inspections and the availability of inspectors.
My hon. Friend, of course, is right about resources, which is why the bid has gone into the 2002 spending review. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has carefully considered the bid and fully supported its submission to ensure that the HSE obtains the necessary resources over the next spending period.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend says that more than resources is involved, and I accept that. Will he tell the House whether he envisages introducing further legislation? I ask because my constituent, James Browne, has campaigned tirelessly to get to the bottom of why his son, Neil, was killed in February 1995 while working as an electrical contractor. Mr. Browne believes that his son's employer should have provided better training, which could have prevented his son's death. Will my hon. Friend consider whether further legislation is needed on, for example, the responsibility of big companies in that regard?
Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend also makes a strong point. He suggests that some people firmly believe that legislation is required to take forward several items on the health and safety agenda, and the tragic case to which he refers may strongly underline that view. Indeed, "Revitalising Health and Safety" makes several proposals for legislation, including clarifying the courts' sentencing powers for health and safety offences; introducing fixed penalties for some health and safety offences; enabling private prosecutions in England and Wales without the consent of the Director of Public

317WH
Prosecutions; clarifying the law on the health and safety responsibilities of directors and senior managers; and removing Crown bodies' immunity from health and safety enforcement.
The document therefore identifies a range of possible issues for new legislation, which we are examining. There is no final view on which will be brought forward, because several involve other aspects of Government business and other Departments. However, when parliamentary time is available, we intend to legislate on a number of issues raised by "Revitalising Health and Safety" and the subsequent responses.
The document contains a long-term strategy with strong emphasis on working in partnership. For the first time, targets will be set for the health and safety system. Those include reducing the number of working days lost per 100,000 workers from work-related injury and ill health by 30 per cent. by 2010; reducing the incidence of fatal and major injury accidents by 10 per cent. by 2010; reducing the incidence of work-related ill health by 20 per cent. by 2010; and achieving half those targets—a milestone—by 2004.
The targets must be considered in the context of what has been achieved so far. The 1974 Act has stood the test of time and we see no case for major reform, but the strategy in "Revitalising Health and Safety" makes a number of proposals for amending health and safety legislation. We may be able to legislate on some areas sooner than others. In the meantime, we shall continue to work with the HSC and the HSE under existing legislation to deliver improved safety in the workplace.
The setting of targets by "Revitalising Health and Safety" has been a catalyst. It is encouraging to see the private sector committing itself to delivering its own targets, which contribute to the national effort. So far, 25 traditional industry sectors have done so, with a further eight to follow suit. Trade unions and local authorities have made a significant contribution in each of those sectors, demonstrating the true partnership approach that the "Revitalising Health and Safety" initiative needs to succeed.
Many sectors have set targets that go beyond the initiative. It is right that industries and organisations that currently perform badly, such as construction, should deliver health and safety improvement beyond the national targets. Setting targets in the food, paper, rubber and quarry industries has shown that they can motivate management, employees and trade unions to work together to change their approach to managing health and safety.
The HSC decided that it needed to prioritise and focus resources and efforts on areas where major improvements are necessary if the targets are to be met. It selected eight priority areas: three sectors—agriculture, construction and health services; and five hazards—falls from height, workplace transport, musculo-skeletal disorders, stress, and slips and trips. The hazards occur in industries where large numbers are employed, the incidence of injury or ill health is high and we have the levers to achieve change and success in combating those hazards. We are only nine months into the programmes and it is too early to tell from the
318WH
accident figures how successful they are likely to be, but the HSC is confident that its work is progressing satisfactorily.
In October last year, we had the second Working Well Together conference, which reviewed progress in delivering the action plans agreed at the February construction summit called by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The message is that a huge culture change is needed in the construction industry if fatalities, injuries and ill health are to be reduced. That requires greater client involvement, more partnership down the supply chain and improved competence at all levels. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and I have asked the HSE's chief inspector of construction to report to us regularly on the progress that industry is making. We are determined to achieve improvements, particularly in the construction industry.
The priority programme for agriculture was severely disrupted by the foot and mouth epidemic, but most restrictions have been lifted and inspections and safety awareness days are being resumed. By the end of March, several thousand self-employed farmers and workers on family farms will have attended free safety awareness days.
Workplace transport accidents are also an issue. On 15 January, I had the pleasure of launching the HSC discussion document, "Preventing Workplace Transport Accidents". It seeks views on the matter and will eventually influence HSE activities and inspection programmes. About 70 people die every year in workplace transport-related incidents. Significant improvements can be made in that area, as they must be made on the railways.
Mr. Russell Brown: I appreciate that the debate is about health and safety in the workplace and the prevention of accidents, but may I raise with the Minister a transport incident that occurred in my constituency? A lorry shed its load, two elderly people were killed and three cars were written off. The insurance company that covered the vehicles said that there was no claim on it because the vehicles did not collide and the company dealing with personal liability said that there was no claim on it because the lorry was incorrectly loaded and overweight. Surely there is a loophole here. Does my hon. Friend agree that something needs to be done? How many lorries and other vehicles run about illegally on our roads every day, with the potential to kill and maim?
Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend's point goes to the heart of the issue of workplace transport priority, which has been put forward by the HSC. There has always been an issue as to what constitutes workplace transport—that is, transport around the workplace—and what is transport that goes from the workplace but is not in it.
There has been a specious divide between the position of a driver who sheds a load or causes injury while driving around the workplace—that comes under one regime—and one who drives through the gate, goes round the corner and sheds the load as a direct result of some requirement of part of his working day, which

319WH
comes under a different regime. The recent Dykes report, which I have discussed with Mr. Dykes, points out that a third of all fatalities on the road are work related—people are involved in fatal accidents while going about duties that they are required to do by their employers.
The incident that my hon. Friend mentions concerned a lorry that was involved in just such an accident. I have discussed the issue with the HSE and we have looked at how matters concerning workplace transport and transport relating to the workplace can be better combined. It is important to pursue that further if the cause of workplace health and safety is to be advanced. Improvements relating to workplace transport can be extended to the railways, and the HSC has published today a progress report on part 1 of Lord Cullen's inquiry. It is vital to exert maximum pressure to achieve the necessary safety improvements.
I could list many achievements from each of the eight priority programmes, such as the publication of revised guidance for employers on work-related stress that was launched in June 2001, the back in work initiative, slips and trips road shows around the UK and identification and sharing of good practices in patient handling in the health service. The newest and arguably the greatest challenges, however, lie in occupational health. They are often in industries that are not regarded, at times by their managing directors, as ones in which accidents in the workplace occur. Overwhelmingly, the main concerns about conditions in such offices and other places where people use computers relate to so-called musculo-skeletal disorders, or MSD; effects on the joints, tendons and muscles; and the effects of excessive stress.
Britain needs a healthier and more productive work force. The Government are determined to reduce health inequalities, whether attributable to work or otherwise. That involves preventing workers from being made ill and ensuring that those excluded from work though sickness or disability—about 2.3 million of them—are rehabilitated as quickly as possible. Furthermore, the workplace is a strong setting for delivering information to help people to lead a healthier lifestyle. That opens up exciting possibilities.
The wider agenda requires a new approach that reaches out to attract national commitment. The cultural change needed cannot be achieved by Government regulation alone, although that has its part to play. We must convince everyone involved of the positive benefits of tackling the issues, including bottom-line financial benefits, and make it easier for them to tackle those issues. The recent cross-Government strategy, "Securing Health Together", is aimed at that. It is one of the planks of "Revitalising Health and Safety".
Partnership is vital to success. I am pleased that many of the initiatives involve industry, employees and the trade unions together. The joint Confederation of British Industry-Trades Union Congress initiative, "Creating Partnerships for Prevention—Joining Up Health and Safety", is an excellent example of different and innovative approaches. A more joined-up approach in the Government to bring the main health and safety
320WH
elements—fire safety, building regulations and occupational health and safety— into one directorate has contributed to partnership and working together.
Mr. Ian Davidson: On the question of joined-up government, is the Minister aware of "Undermining Construction", a report produced by the Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians? It makes it clear that the Treasury and the Inland Revenue, by encouraging false self-employment, contribute to the number of accidents in the building industry. Does he agree that that number of accidents would be reduced drastically if he convinced the Inland Revenue and Treasury to be much tougher on that issue?
Dr. Whitehead: Consideration of several aspects of the construction industry is important. It had and still has a poor health and safety record in terms of ensuring that those employed in it are properly protected. As my hon. Friend knows, certain practices could be said to have contributed to that record. It is important to recognise that the recent Government-led initiatives to bring elements of the industry together begin to point the way to ensuring that health and safety is taken seriously at the centre as an element of employment. It will be an important step forward if, as a result of that, better consideration is given to the way in which people are employed in the industry, thereby facilitating health and safety.
An issue for the construction industry and many other industries is the presence and operation of safety representatives. The case for such representatives and employee involvement more broadly is already well made, but the body of evidence for their efficacy keeps growing. Recent research published by the HSE, in a document called "Employee Involvement in Health and Safety: Some Examples of Good Practice", shows that companies that ask employees for their views on health and safety issues can cut down on accidents.
I must thank the Learning and Skills Council and the TUC, working with the HSE and my Department, for their efforts to put in place arrangements to fund and provide training for safety representatives. I look forward to positive results from the initiative.
It is also important that we recognise that the primary responsibility to manage risk effectively and provide healthy and safe workplaces rests ultimately with employers, and company directors in the example of large organisations. The HSE guidance, "Directors' Responsibilities for Health and Safety", was published last summer following a consultation that elicited an excellent response from unions, employers and other organisations.
Bill Callaghan, the chairman of the HSC, and I have written to the top 350 companies in the country to remind them of the challenge to set out their policies and targets for improving health and safety performance and to record their achievements in their annual reports. That is an important initiative and we shall report on its progress shortly, and on those companies that have yet to respond to it.
The challenge applies equally to the Government. All Departments are being encouraged to publish their health and safety performance in their annual reports,

321WH
and to assign health and safety responsibility to a senior official at a level equivalent to that of director. It is important to keep the pressure on. Although a lot has been achieved to secure improvements in the health and safety system, there is still a long way to go before we meet those challenging targets in 2010.
Our next major milestone is reaching the 2004 targets. I am confident that we are on track to achieve that. On 29 May, we are holding a conference entitled "Take Action" to review progress on target setting and to name and acclaim good practice. I am confident that, working in partnership with the HSC, the HSE, employers and the unions, the Government will face the challenges and deliver the targets we have set ourselves.
Mr. Davidson: The Minister says that he is willing to name and acclaim those companies that contribute to implementing Government policy. Is he willing to name and shame those companies that do not?
Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend may have picked up on my reference to the letter that has been sent to the top 350 companies in the country. I am minded not only to acclaim companies that have responded to the initiative, but to ensure that those companies that have not are identified. It is important to do both.
I recently visited a quarry in Telford that won an award from the industry for its health and safety record. It was apparent from the working practices that the management, the work force and everybody involved in the company treated health and safety as a central concern. That was reflected in terms of the number of fatalities and injuries there, in an industry that is inherently dangerous. It has difficult working practices and a historically high injury rate.
It is right that that company was named and acclaimed, because it not only has an exemplary safety record, but it makes a good living, partly because it is pre-eminent in health and safety practice. That means that its employees need fewer days off work and it suffers fewer shutdowns because of injuries on the line. Workers stay with the company for a long time, because they value their positions.
That company is doing well as a result of its very good health and safety record. It is right to name and acclaim, but it is also right to identify those that shamefully neglect health and safety as a way to secure cut-price profits or to get through the working week. They are damaging not only the health and safety of their workers, but their own prospects, so it is important that we both acclaim and shame.
Mr. Lloyd: That is helpful and I agree with the Minister, but does he agree that there is still a missing dimension to the process? Although it is good to name and acclaim, because that encourages the health and safety culture, and good to name and shame, it is also important to prosecute. Prosecuting and giving penalties—those are inadequate and should be raised—are an important way to send the message that good firms have nothing to fear from the new health and safety culture, but rogue firms do.
Dr. Whitehead: Yes, it is important in HSE practice to take measures that may end in prosecution, if
322WH
appropriate. The HSE recognised that it should investigate more reported cases, and the amount of firms investigated has risen from 6.7 per cent. to about 10 per cent. Some of those investigations will result in prosecutions, and an increased number have been undertaken. However, stop notices or improvement notices may be put on a company, which will ensure that it improves without preventing it from doing business.
We should proceed with a combination of approaches, including prosecution, notices, naming and shaming and naming and acclaiming, where appropriate. The HSE has a good record of managing its approach to inspection, enforcement and prosecution and using the weapons at its disposal.
The health and safety of people at work is fundamental to successful business. I described one business in which the health and safety of the workers made a vital contribution to productivity and profit. Firms should not only comply with health and safety law, but go a stage further and make a thoroughgoing commitment to a better working environment. That is the attitude that "Revitalising Health and Safety" wants to engender and which will serve us well as we debate the subject.

I welcome the debate and look forward to hearing hon. Members' views on the issues to which I have referred. I hope that together we may ensure that the health and safety agenda is put on the map for future years.
3.2 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Again, this Chamber gives us the opportunity to debate matters for which there is little time on the Floor of the House.
We shall hear speeches from Labour Members, who will cite individual cases and, thereafter, call for health and safety legislation to deal with them. We all respect the fact that 1 million people killed and injured in the workplace, which is the figure that the Minister quoted, is 1 million too many. However, he rightly set out the case that making legislation too onerous and burdensome and gilding European legislation makes United Kingdom firms uncompetitive and forces them out of business. Those who lose their jobs will certainly suffer health and safety problems, and the country will have to put up taxes unnecessarily.
Mr. Michael Clapham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I have a lot of issues to cover and I shall not give way many more times
Mr. Clapham: I want to pick up the hon. Gentleman on his point about the profitability and competitiveness of British industry in relation to health and safety legislation. Is he aware that the British deep mining coal industry is the safest in the world, has the most stringent safety legislation and is the most competitive in Europe?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but legislation is not necessarily what creates good health and safety regimes. Everyone who has an interest

323WH
in health and safety should promote it through their firms, but excessive legislation is not always needed as support.
We should bear it in mind that proper risk assessments must be made. We should ask, "What is the risk involved and do we need legislation?"
Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall give way once more, and that will be the last time.
Roger Casale: Of course some companies will introduce proper health and safety measures to protect their work force in the absence of legislation, but we need legislation to promote best practice everywhere.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: We have had all-embracing legislation since the 1974 Act was passed. Of course, where issues arise, it may be necessary to change the law, but as I shall show when I cite some European directives in a moment, we are going too far in the direction of "nanny state knows best." There used to be a maxim that sensational cases make bad law, and it is unrealistic to call for legislation every time something goes wrong.
I want to raise three issues. The first is based on a representation that we received from the Engineering Employers Federation. The second, which has been brought to our attention by Calor Gas, relates to charging. The third is white asbestos. There is concern that the HSE is, in some cases, unaccountable and that its remit to maximise profits does not recognise commercial realities, which I shall illustrate in a moment.
The Government have proposed possible legislation to introduce a category of corporate manslaughter and an offence of corporate killing. The EEF says:
"We are concerned that parts of the Government's proposals could have the opposite effect, with undertakings vesting responsibility for health and safety in just a few people and making individuals and companies reluctant to share information."
It continues:
"There is a danger that making individual managers personally liable for the offence of corporate killing will lead to … scapegoating … The definition of corporate killing requires more explanation. In particular, it is unclear what is meant by 'management failure".
The EEF goes on:
"The freezing of company assets is inappropriate and would act as a major deterrent for organisations to enter a guilty plea … We have serious reservations concerning HSE's expertise to investigate and prosecute these proposed new criminal offences."
Hon. Members of all parties are concerned that we are increasingly passing legislation that turns a civil matter into a criminal offence. Having a criminal record is serious, and the Government should think carefully before they make more civil matters criminal offences. The EEF says that the correct way forward is for employers to work in partnerships, which the Minister mentioned.
324WH
The EEF welcomes some new Government proposals, such as placing a duty on local authorities to give the HSE information about enforcement. It welcomes the proposal to give the HSE access to National Assembly for Wales and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs data. Above all—a matter of concern to this House—it welcomes the removal of Crown immunity from the Palace of Westminster.
The EEF cites the burden of European directives, in particular four proposed directives on vibration, noise, optical radiation and electro-magnetic radiation, saying that the vibration directive is of particular concern to
manufacturing industry. The limit value—the point beyond which exposure would become criminal—is set too low, so that many everyday processes will be criminalised. The EEF says that the directive also contains requirements to limit exposure to whole-body vibration:
"The little research that has been done in this area suggests that these EU requirements, if adopted, could lead to significant limitations being placed on working hours of tractor, construction plant drivers and many others."
We are worried that some of those EU regulations are not properly thought out or researched and not based on hard fact.
The second issue relates to the remit of the HSE. The HSE is required to maximise receipts. That was brought to our attention by Calor Gas, which is a leading supplier with 11 sites rated top tier and 23 sites rated lower tier. It has operated in the United Kingdom since 1935 and has never had a fatality at any site. In March 1999, the Government introduced a new, more burdensome system of charging for HSE inspections, safety reports, assessments and enforcement. Under a subsequent comprehensive charging review, the cost to the company will be £250,000 more than under the old regime—the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984. The new regime is the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999.
The company believes that it is being unfairly treated. It has storage capacity for 849 tonnes of liquefied petroleum gas and employs 86 people. The health and safety report that must now be made will take approximately 800 hours. The oil industry has storage capacity for 12.5 million barrels and 300 employees. Its health and safety report will take only 325 hours. Calor Gas believes that that is unrealistic.
The company is particularly concerned that it referred the cost of the extra time spent on the health and safety report to the appeal body, but did not receive a satisfactory answer. It was told that the HSE has no real interest in keeping the cost competitive. It seems totally wrong that the HSE can demand a report with no democratic accountability or proper appeal mechanism. That is a case ripe for the involvement of the European Court of Human Rights.
The company says that the charges fail the better regulation principles of proportionality and transparency, are not predictable and provide a perverse incentive to prolong work by the HSE. The charges cannot be challenged impartially and independently, although that principle is enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998.

325WH
The third and most serious issue concerns white asbestos. There is a new European directive—there always is—and the Minister said in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) on 12 March 2002:
"The European Commission directive 1999/77/EC requires marketing, supply and use of white asbestos to be banned throughout the European Union by 1 January 2005. All other types of asbestos are already banned. Many member states, including the UK, have introduced a ban in advance of that date. The UK ban came into force on 24 November 1999, apart from a few very limited time based exemptions. It does not apply to asbestos, which was in use before that date."
The Government, not content with gilding that particular lily, put out to consultation a requirement that all public and commercial buildings must be surveyed for asbestos and a proper management regime put in place. That is perfectly reasonable for blue and brown asbestos, but the jury is out in the case of white asbestos—[Interruption.] If hon. Members listen for a minute or two, I shall allow them to intervene.
Numerous parliamentary questions have been tabled by Conservative Members and the Government always rely on scientific evidence in the papers of Professor Peto and Professor Doll from 1985–95. They examined the deaths at the Turner and Newall factory at Rochdale, which Labour Members know well, and by linear extraction only estimated from that hotspot that the number of deaths throughout the country would be 3,000. They were unable to allocate those between brown and blue and white asbestos. Indeed, it has emerged that Turner and Newall used only white asbestos after 1945.
One might think that that makes the case on white asbestos, but Dr. Alan Gibbs, a Cardiff histopathologist, discovered from electro-microscopy that no lungs of people who died from mesothelioma contained white asbestos fibre. That has been accepted by the HSE. He is not a statistician who has taken a hotspot and linearly extrapolated from a graph or any other theoretical material. He is a medic who has examined lungs, and he has not found that a single death from mesothelioma— the cancer caused by blue and brown asbestos—involved white asbestos.
Mr. Lloyd rose—
Mr. Andrew Dismore Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) rose—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Hang on. Labour Members need to be patient.
Dr. Gibbs published that evidence in a 1995 paper for the Medical Research Council and the Institute of Environmental Health. The Government also rely on evidence from Hodgson and Denton, but they are two statisticians employed by the HSE, and they took the same evidence from the Turner and Newall factory. If the Peto and Doll evidence is flawed, so is that of Hodgson and Denton.
The Americans take the matter seriously. They have examined evidence from scientists all over the world, and they have downgraded their health and safety regulations in relation to white asbestos. After the
326WH
11 September tragedy, it was estimated that 40 tonnes of white asbestos were released into the atmosphere by the collapse of the world trade centre. The Environmental Protection Agency publicly advised that there was no danger to the public. If the American EPA gave that advice after 40 tonnes of loose white asbestos fibres had been released into the atmosphere, something must be wrong with the thin evidence on which the Government are relying.
Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: If hon. Members are more patient, I shall allow them to intervene.
White asbestos has a totally different chemical composition from blue and brown asbestos. Blue and brown asbestos are iron silicate, whereas white asbestos is magnesium silicate and is similar in composition to talcum powder. Every one of us breathes in 2,000 fibres a day.
Dr. Whitehead: Wrong. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that talc is similar to white asbestos, as coal is similar to diamonds? In respect of the properties of white asbestos and talc, one is fibrous and the other is not. That is the fundamental difference, which the hon. Gentleman appears not to take into account.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: We can all make such ripostes. White asbestos is classed by the European Union as a class I carcinogen, but so too are hot alcoholic beverages and nickel compounds such as the euro.
Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: No. I have just given way to the Minister. We need to examine the scientific evidence in an open and impartial way. I call on the Minister to do that.
What will he the effect of regulations that are based on—let us face it—flimsy scientific evidence? If any damage to buildings is occurring, all asbestos must be removed. It is estimated that that will involve a survey of 1.2 million buildings, at a huge direct cost to the taxpayer. A range of common building products, such as asbestos cement and artex sealing, will be included in the survey and any degradation to such asbestos compounds will mean that they will have to be removed. It is estimated that compliance costs to the country will be between £1.2 billion and £8 billion, although a recent written answer stated that it will be £4.8 billion, and, under the Government's revised guidance to allow amortisation over 50 years, it might be reduced to £3.6 billion. Whichever the cost, those are big numbers.
Commercial costs may be much bigger because many property experts predict that if a building is more than halfway through its commercial life, it is cheaper to demolish it. We have already heard stories of cowboy operators who remove asbestos illegally and dump it illegally with no record of where it is kept or of the type of asbestos that it is.
Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I want to make it clear—then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman that— I am not

327WH
arguing that the regulations should not apply to blue or brown asbestos, which are killers because they are carcinogens. White asbestos is in a different category.
Mr. Dismore: Prior to coming to the House, I practised for 20 years as a personal injury lawyer. I dealt with quite a few asbestos cases, including some in which people were only ever exposed to white asbestos. The last case with which I dealt before I was elected to Parliament, for example, concerned an engineer who was involved in the original commissioning of the Bankside power station, which is now the Tate gallery. He was exposed only to white asbestos, and he contracted mesothelioma. If it did not come from white asbestos, where did it come from?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman—this is a bit gruesome—had that person's lungs analysed. If he did, I should be interested to receive the details. We are all fallible. I presented the information that is coming to me. If the lungs were analysed and if white asbestos fibres were found to have caused the mesothelioma, it would, of course, be useful evidence. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give that evidence to the inquiry for which I shall call.
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should pop up and make that intervention, as we are seeing an increasing number of litigation lawyers advertising that they deal with asbestosis claims; the legal bills are rising all the time. If such claims are based on flimsy scientific evidence, it is another cause for concern.
It is not only the property industry that is concerned, and it is not only the legal industry's costs that are mounting; insurance costs are also mounting hugely. Sun Alliance recently published its six-monthly profit figures, which had declined from £459 million last year to zero this year. Although its report says that that was partly due to 11 September, it also states that asbestosis claims were the biggest single cause.
Mr. Clapham: Asbestosis?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I said asbestosis.
The latest cause for concern—this is the European Union putting its oar in again—is that Directorates-General III is trying to classify white asbestos cement, which is encapsulated, as being the same as loose blue asbestos. That will further escalate costs, but such cement is not dangerous. The Government have admitted that asbestos is not dangerous when it is encapsulated within a building material. If such a measure were enacted, a licence would be required to remove white asbestos and to dispose of it.
Furthermore, there are accusations within the EU that the commercial companies producing alternative products are pushing that legislation. In asking the Government for an independent inquiry, I challenge them on whether the alternatives are safe. One of the main alternatives is cellulose, a fibrous product, which I understand has not been tested as a carcinogen. It has certainly not been compared with white asbestos.
Hon. Members have tried to intervene on me and some of the information that I have been given may well be wrong. None of us is infallible, but whatever the
328WH
rights or wrongs, I hope that the Minister will realise that this is a highly serious issue involving billions of pounds of compliance costs, which may be unnecessary.
Mr. Dismore: And thousands of lives.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Perhaps the cost is thousands of lives; who knows? There may be better ways to deal with the problem. The problem, and those who believe that white asbestos is not a problem, will not go away. The official Opposition are today calling on the Government for a full inquiry, to which I hope the Minister will agree, to allow all the evidence to be presented and evaluated.
I do not want to denigrate safe health and safety practices, but in all our businesses, including this place, we should look for better practices in health and safety in order to reduce injuries and deaths in the workplace. It is not always a case of more inspectors, more legislation and gilding European legislation. We need to look sensibly at the problems, the risk assessment and how that risk can be minimised. Even when we leave the Chamber and cross the road, there is a risk. There is a risk present in most things that we do in our daily lives, but we cannot legislate for everything.
3.24 pm
Harry Cohen: I shall respond briefly to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). His speech amounted to a discussion of re-legitimising the use of white asbestos, which he referred to as almost the equivalent of talcum powder. He disputed the scientific studies, but his case certainly could and would be disputed. The characteristics mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister in his intervention are relevant.
The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Cotswold was almost the same as the one that we heard for years about smoking. That industry used the excuse that the scientific evidence was flimsy. The hon. Gentleman makes the same argument for those who want to bring back white asbestos. As for his point about not making civil offences into criminal offences, a lot of people's lives have been lost and are being lost due to negligence or deliberate malpractice. That warrants being treated as a crime and should even result in imprisonment for those who bring about such loss of life.
Whatever happened to the Conservatives' deterrence theory? If there is no penalty, there is no incentive for employers to improve their practices, and there is more loss of life as a result. I thought that the Opposition's approach to a most serious debate that involves many people's lives was disappointing.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Harry Cohen: Very briefly.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I should like a chance to clarify what I said, as I believe that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. My point was not that there should not be penalties. For some of the more serious offences, there should be very severe penalties indeed, perhaps involving heavy fines and even imprisonment. That is different from imposing a criminal penalty for what is

329WH
essentially a civil matter. A criminal penalty, as the lawyers on the Government Benches will know, involves someone's character being stained for the rest of his life.
Harry Cohen: For the victim, an offence means the loss of his life or serious injury. I hope to see the hon. Gentleman and his party join me in the Lobby, when we have the opportunity, to vote for introducing an offence of corporate manslaughter.
Mr. Davidson: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way before he has made progress on his own speech. Does he agree that anyone listening to the Opposition could form the view that the Tory party had become a subsidiary of the Canadian white asbestos industry? The Opposition seem to be much more exercised by that matter than anything else. Does my hon. Friend share my regret that the Opposition spokesman said nothing about construction and did not have a word to say about false self-employment? It must be said that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was doing fine until he spoke.
Harry Cohen: My priority, which should be Parliament's priority, is victims and their families. That is the basis on which we should take action.
I welcome the debate. I sought an Adjournment debate on the same topic for a considerable while. I welcome the Government's commitment to health and safety at work, which my hon. Friend the Minister spelled out. I should say at the outset that the Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians, the trade union of the construction industry, gives a regular donation to my political party and that I am on its panel of parliamentary advisers. That is not a vested interest on my part, but a common interest. My concerns for health and safety—such as getting asbestos banned—predate that arrangement with UCATT.
Death and occupational sickness in the construction industry are running at high levels. Deaths are at their highest for a decade. Fatalities have reached more than 100 a year for the first time in a decade, bringing the total for the past 10 years to 921. The construction industry, with 7 per cent. of the British work force, accounted for nearly 36 per cent. of all industry fatalities last year. Workers in the construction industry have the highest rate of working days lost due to work-related injury, at 650 days per 1,000 workers.
A report by Amey Vectra to the Health and Safety Commission estimated that ill health cost the construction industry £760 million per annum. At the CBI conference, its director-general, John Cridland, pointed out that
"sickness absence cost United Kingdom businesses £11 billion a year which, when the cost to Government of statutory sick pay and welfare payments to the long term sick is added, rises to £23 billion."
That is the extent of the cost of occupational ill health.
That cost is worst of all in the construction industry. In February 2000, at a summit organised by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Government put much emphasis on improving health and safety. Several targets were set to reduce the incidence of fatalities in major industries by
330WH
40 per cent. by 2004–05, and by 66 per cent. by the end of the decade. Targets were also set to reduce the incidence of cases of work-related ill health by 20 per cent. by 2004–05, and 50 per cent. by the end of the decade, and to reduce the number of working days lost per 100,000 workers from work-related injury and ill health by 20 per cent. by 2005, and 50 per cent. by the end of the decade. That was welcome.
There was an October follow-up conference to revitalise the health and safety action teams, but I fear that the Government did not have the same enthusiasm at that conference as they had in February. Since then, the employers' organisation, the Construction Confederation, has engaged in what looks like backtracking from the pilot scheme that was set up in the construction industry. It has moved away from that pilot project, which shows the resistance and recalcitrance of the construction industry employers in that regard. We can no longer rely on them to make improvements voluntarily. The Government must seriously consider placing requirements on those employers, if the targets are to be met. That is vital, as are enforcement penalties if the employers do not meet the targets.
The situation in London was detailed in the Daily Hazard of November 2001. It pointed out that in the previous year, 33 people were killed at work, and 16 of them were construction workers in London. The magazine added:
"Yet there was no increase in enforcement action. Prosecutions and convictions in London and the south east were at roughly the same level as for the last five years and enforcement notices were at their lowest. London courts are handing down the same average fine for health and safety offences as in 1998, just over £5,000"
That outlines the situation.
I have another example, from The Big Issue, which states:
"Brian Knight … a steel worker, killed in 1998 in a fall at London's Imperial War Museum. An inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing."

The fact that the case was not taken forward by the Crown Prosecution Service highlights serious inadequacy in our criminal justice system. The article in The Big Issue continues:
"Almost 30,000 workers suffered serious injuries at work, but only one in 20 were ever investigated."
That shows the shortage of inspectors. The health and safety trade union document "Prospects for Safety" quoted an anonymous health and safety inspector who said:
"The workload is so overwhelming you don't know where to start. It is soul destroying. I have no sense of making any difference."
That is shocking.
Other quotes indicate that inspectors do make a difference. For example, one inspector says that when he goes on site, helmets are immediately put on. Inspectors make a difference, but one can understand how soul-destroying their work load is.
Mr. Mark Field: We all have great concerns about any death, particularly in the construction industry. A significant amount of large-scale construction takes place in my constituency. However, it strikes me as bizarre that only one in 20

331WH
accidents that result in injury are investigated, according to the hon. Gentleman's quote. I simply cannot believe that. I ask that he investigate further and provide full information to the Minister. Clearly, there are obligations on any employer, particularly in the construction industry, to ensure that there is a full report, and the Health and Safety Executive is brought in if there is a serious accident leading to fatality.
Harry Cohen: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I will not follow up on it, as other hon. Members will not have a chance to speak. However, it is clear that there are not enough inspectors for the many accidents that occur. That is the central point. They do not do nearly as many inspections as they would like to do.
Insufficient money has been allocated. "Prospects for Safety" states:
"HSE did not receive the full amount it bid for and, in reality, it is not getting any more money."
It goes on to give figures. There is a relatively small increase, which comes about because of what the HSE charges the nuclear, rail and offshore sectors. The document continues:
"HSE is merely being allowed to spend more of what it expects or hopes to receive from the new regime for charging duty-holders to process their safety cases."
The Government are not putting enough money in, and ''Prospects for Safety" comments:
"The Health and Safety Executive should be given at least £35 million extra each year in real terms so that it can:
Double the number of inspectors so each workplace is inspected at least once every five years;
Inspect each new workplace in the first year of operation, rather than five or 10 years down the line, if at all;
Invest in scientific expertise to research and develop procedures and devices of benefit to health and safety at work;
Provide professional forensic support by scientific staff to back up HSE investigations into deaths and injuries at work, similar to that available to the police."
That would be £35 million well spent.
I shall summarise what needs to be done. There must be new regulations for control of asbestos at work. Workers should have the right to know where the asbestos is, and a trade union representative should be involved in the management of that risk. A campaign for corporate accountability has been launched. Its membership includes bereaved people, the TUC and others. It calls for legally binding safety duties on individual company directors, a new law on corporate killing, a substantial increase in the number of health and safety inspectors, a power for union safety representatives to serve provisional improvement notices and many other changes.
The Government must take action. In particular, a new corporate manslaughter offence must be included in the next Queen's Speech and enacted in the next Parliament. There must be no Crown immunity for this place or any other. For example, the Army got away with reported deaths because it claimed Crown immunity. Let us get rid of that, but get many more health and safety inspectors and more cash in the system. We could start with an extra £35 million.
3.39 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: This is an extremely important and serious subject, though perhaps not politically glamorous. It is well worth debating.
The Government appear to be trailing some of their ideas for legislation, which we will doubtless consider shortly. Their ideas have been trailed twice already in the Queen's Speech, and I hope that we see some action before long. As the Minister frankly acknowledged, health and safety is a deteriorating problem. The figures given to me by the TUC show that in almost every major sector of employment last year, the number of major accidents increased.
There is a paradox that I do not understand—I came to the debate today partly to help me understand it. We are getting two contradictory messages. The first message is that our system of health and safety enforcement is extremely weak. According to my figures, only one in 12—rather than one in 20—major accidents, including serious accidents such as amputation, are investigated externally. That should answer the question of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). Of the cases that are investigated, only one in 10 results in a prosecution, and in those prosecutions, the average fine is about £5,000, which is ridiculous for a large company. We have a regime which, on many levels, seems to be lax, accommodating and tolerant of accidents.
The second message is a complaint, which the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) tried to make and which I hear every time that I speak to business, about red tape and regulation. When I ask for examples, almost all concern health and safety. How do we reconcile those two factors? I shall come back to how we might reconcile them, but first I want to discuss some issues concerning legislative change.
The big question is corporate killing. In the light of past experience, where it has been almost impossible for the Crown Prosecution Service to launch prosecutions under involuntary manslaughter provisions—the most topical is Railtrack—there is a clear need for a change in legislation. That would attract wide support in business. I was surprised when the hon. Member for Cotswold referred to the Engineering Employers Federation paper, because he read it selectively. One line that he did not read puts a totally different light on it. The EEF said:
"We therefore support the introduction of a new offence of corporate killing in principle".
In fact, most responsible employers would have no problem with such an offence, because in many respects they are subject to the threat of imprisonment already. People in a small company that is not public can go down for manslaughter. Those involved in aspects such as food safety can go to prison. The Scottish butchers who sold contaminated meat that led to a food poisoning epidemic a few years ago went to prison. This is not a new principle, and most businesses would accept that the most heinous cases should result in criminal penalties.
The problem, which is much more subtle than the hon. Member for Cotswold allowed for, is how we can couch the legislation so that the people who are prosecuted in the big companies are the real offenders and not scapegoats. We can all envisage a situation in a big company in which a relatively weak member of the

333WH
management team is given the health and safety job, or the company is told that it should have a token woman or member of an ethnic minority in a management position, so it gives them the safety job. Those would be the people who go down if there were a prosecution. Such scapegoating could happen, so the legislation should be careful to avoid it. That is a subtle point, which relates to legislative drafting, not to the principle of corporate killing.
Another issue for legislation concerns statutory immunity for Government. I did not hear that point mentioned, although the Minister read through his list rather quickly and I may have missed it. Why are the Government not subject to the same rules as the private sector? If a senior civil servant is responsible for health and safety in a Government building and, as a result of extreme negligence, another civil servant is killed or seriously injured, why should the civil service not be subject to the same scrutiny and penalties as the private sector? There is no moral or other justification for Crown immunity in the civil service. Many private businesses would accept tough standards of health and safety if they believed that the Government applied the same rigour to themselves as they demand of them.
The Minister spoke about all the targets that the Government are setting. During parliamentary questions, I asked how many Departments are setting themselves proper targets for reducing sickness, but I did not receive a satisfactory answer. Are the Government asking the Health and Safety Executive for help to reduce sickness, as they expect the private sector to do? The Government must lead from the front, not set prescriptions for business.
The Minister spoke about penalties. In many respects, penalties in relation to health and safety are hopelessly inappropriate and trivially small. I did not understand the Minister's point about fixed penalties. That almost reduces health and safety to a parking offence. Token fixed penalties are not appropriate. Serious abuses incur large and painful penalties that are proportionate to the injury and reflect the resources of the company involved. I am not sure how a fixed penalty regime helps enforcement. Perhaps the Minister will explain.
I did not hear the Minister mention rehabilitation. Will he say whether the new legislation will encourage rehabilitation—an aspect in which British industry does so badly? In Sweden, one in two injured employees eventually goes back to work, with the help of the company. In this country, the figure is only one in 10. Trade union research suggests that only one in three British companies has a policy to help with rehabilitation. Will the legislation contain a provision to bring pressure to bear to make rehabilitation part of a company's duty?
Will there be provision for strengthening the position of workplace representatives? A few weeks ago, workplace learning representatives were given enhanced status under new labour legislation. Will those provisions be extended to safety representatives who are crucial for the improvement of safety consciousness? I am talking not only about union representatives. I do not know how many hon. Members received the submission from St. John Ambulance, but it argues that the ability to respond to industrial accidents improves
334WH
enormously if there are trained first aiders in every workplace. St. John Ambulance asks whether something can be done by example, if not legislation, to give first-aiders a greater status in the labour force. I hope that the legislation will address those issues.

I refer again to the apparent paradox of relatively weak enforcement and businesses constantly telling us that they suffer from over-regulation and red tape. I am sure that the increased number of inspectors do a useful job. Much of their work is unspectacular. It is not about penalising or pursuing companies, but about prevention and advice. All that is useful. However, companies often tell me that the number of powers that the HSE has to enter industrial premises has risen from 150 to 300 in the past 20 years. Many inspectors operate independently. As the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) said, they may be under a lot of pressure. However, they often work in an entirely unco-ordinated way. One hears stories—some may be apocryphal but sound plausible—that an HSE inspector enters a premises and demands that a floor be laid in the interests of safety, and a few weeks later another says that it should be taken up under a different safety provision.
Such duplication and confusion in the inspection system is a major bugbear. No doubt the Minister has considered the matter before. There should be a designated single inspector who looks at a company in the round, particularly small businesses. Clearly, a careful approach would be needed, because if one inspector were allocated to one company for a period of years, unhealthy relationships could develop. A system is needed that makes it much simpler and easier to implement companies' regulatory obligations.
The second specific question about enforcement concerns risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses, which the hon. Member for Cotswold spoke about. I have one good example of that which, if it is true, is an appalling reflection on the system. It was brought to my attention about a year ago by an organisation called the British Compressed Air Society, which represents a group of companies that deal with pneumatic equipment. It was concerned about a rather technical but important area of industrial safety: whole body vibrations through equipment. Arm vibrations and the problems of pneumatic drills are a separate issue.
Apparently, the British authorities, either in the Department or the HSE, prepared their own regulation, which they then took to the European Union to turn into a European directive. They did not consult the industry or the unions: they acted within the industrial safety machinery. Once they had obtained European approval for the directive, someone in the British Government decided that a risk assessment was needed. That was carried out and it was concluded that the costs of the new regulation would exceed the benefits by a factor of seven. Costs of billion of pounds would now be inflicted on the industry, quite unnecessarily. As the industry explained, it could meet the Government's objectives with a proper risk-bases approach. It could adapt the equipment in a way that met the objectives. However, the Government pressed ahead. They had got European approval and the directive is now in the process of being implemented.
I hope that the Minister can confirm whether that story is true. If it is, and there is no reason why the BCAS should have told me an untruth, it illustrates the

335WH
extraordinarily cumbersome way in which the Government deal with regulatory problems, the lack of prior consultation with both sides of industry and the fact that they either do not carry out a risk assessment or ignore its findings. There are some important lessons to be learned.
The debate is narrowly constructed around the issue of health and safety at work. As health and safety is part of a wider culture, it is probably appropriate to refer to the news stories this morning about how the recommendations of the Cullen and Uff reports have not been implemented. In the Cullen case, 20 of the 40 recommendations that were accepted by the then Secretary of State have never been implemented. Only one in five of the Uff recommendations have ever been implemented. As the Minister has a responsibility for railways, as well as for health and safety, perhaps he can explain to us what has gone wrong. Is it a failure of the companies? Is a failure of Government? Why is the safety culture that we want industry to take seriously not being applied in an area that is of enormous public concern?
3.54 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I say to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that John Monks's investment in speaking at the Liberal Democrat spring conference certainly paid dividends. I recognised the TUC brief all the way through the hon. Gentleman's speech. I agreed with much of what he said, but I did not go along with the idea that no woman or black person could be in charge of health and safety. That may be a difference between Labour and Liberal Democrat Members.
The most remarkable speech that we have heard so far was that from the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I was astonished that, although he conceded that there were problems with health and safety, he did not talk about them and offered no solutions, even ones that might be different from mine. He talked instead about retrenching the health and safety regime, but if the Conservative party has nothing to add to the debate other than a request for existing legislation to be retrenched, it is out of touch with the needs of modern Britain.
Even now, we see Tory Members of Parliament leaping up and down and becoming highly agitated about industrial disputes. However, Parliament and the country must recognise that, although 500,000 days were lost last year through industrial stoppages of all kinds, 6 million to 7 million days are lost every year through injuries at work or health breakdowns for occupational reasons. The scale of health and safety need is massive, compared with the issues that have preoccupied the Conservative party for a generation.
It is about time that we realised what that problem means, as it results in a loss of efficiency in industry and a huge cost to the nation. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) quoted the figure of £23 billion, I think. It is interesting that one of those who drew attention to that figure was the deputy director-general of the CBI. The issue concerns not only employees, but all of us and how we develop the safety culture that we need.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has slightly misrepresented what I said. I am very concerned about
336WH
any aspect of health and safety where people are injured or killed. No one condones that in any way. The Opposition are not against health and safety legislation, but we want good, well targeted and, above all, necessary legislation. That does not prevent us from criticising the Government when we think that they have got things wrong.
Mr. Lloyd: I do not disagree. Indeed, I found the hon. Gentleman's speech interesting. He was effectively saying that the Conservative party is in favour of health and safety, but we cannot afford too much of it. That is radically different from what even the CBI says.
I do not want to dwell on the hon. Gentleman's speech, but he made another two astonishing points. One was about not criminalising civil offences. If I drive my car recklessly or carelessly, however, there is no circumstance in which that would not be considered a criminal offence, because I have put the safety of my passengers, my fellow citizens and myself at risk. The idea that we can do that in the workplace and it should be only a civil offence is barbaric. It takes us back to the baronial rights that I thought even the Conservative party had gone beyond.
The hon. Gentleman is equally wrong about white asbestos. He said that insurance companies were concerned about massive payouts, not for Mesothelioma—although that is a dreadful form of cancer—but for asbestosis. The hon. Gentleman may have doubts about the mesothelioma-causing properties of white asbestos, but I hope that he has none about the asbestosis-causing properties of white asbestos. If he has, he is sadly wrong.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Again, the hon. Gentleman has misrepresented what I said. I did not say that there would be no circumstances in which criminal sanctions should be invoked in health and safety legislation; I said that there was an increasing tendency for the House to pass legislation in which criminal sanctions are involved in essential civil matters. That is totally different from what the hon. Gentleman said.
Of course there will be people who contracted mesothelioma—a dreadful disease that leads to a dreadful death—from blue asbestos and brown asbestos, and there should be proper legislation and proper compensation where workers have been proven to contract it. However, that is different from saying that the scientific evidence—at least the evidence that I have been given—shows that white asbestos is as dangerous as blue or brown asbestos.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. Before we proceed, I must point out that some interventions are at the limits of tolerance. Many hon. Members want to catch my eye. I appeal for co-operation in limiting interventions so that as many Members as possible can contribute to the debate.
Mr. Lloyd: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not give way again to the hon. Member for Cotswold, who is a nuisance.
Asbestosis is not a bag of laughs in any circumstances: it is an extremely unpleasant condition. Beyond any doubt, it is caused by asbestos, including white asbestos.

337WH
The key factor in health and safety is the culture. Firms that set out to achieve a high standard of health and safety can do so. For many years, the chemical firm DuPont ran a 100 per cent. non-accident regime. The staff, from the management right the way through the work force, tried to achieve that goal, and the company did what it set out to do. All firms should follow that example. We need to examine how best to develop that culture.
I was pleased to hear the Minister emphasise the need for partnership. If full partnership across the work force—from top management down to the bottom—were ever needed in any aspect of corporate life, it must be in the creation of a health and safety culture. I strongly endorse the suggestion of examining the role of the safety representative. There remains a gap in respect of the right of properly accredited safety representatives—usually sensible people—to stop the job when it becomes dangerous. Some jobs, especially in the construction industry, can be incredibly dangerous, yet the work force may not have the protection of automatic dismissal when the safety representative finds an unsafe regime. We do not develop a safety culture as we should.
Several hon. Members referred to the need for proper sanctions for corporate killing. The gap in the law is huge. It is years since the Herald of Free Enterprise and Ladbroke Grove incidents, but we are still discussing whether prosecutions should take place. There must be proper sanctions and, for the most heinous crimes, people should go to jail. In any other walk of life, killing people or putting lives at risk is considered so serious that those responsible are put in jail with no compunction. The comparison with motor offences is immediate and obvious.
It is now 18 months since consultation on the White Paper closed. That involves another Department, but I ask the Minister for joined-up government. The message should go out that we want suitable legislation in the next parliamentary Session.
I should like to say a few words about the Health and Safety Executive. Many dedicated people make good things happen and spend their careers trying to improve the culture and climate of health and safety. The Health and Safety Executive remains significantly underfunded. I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about the bid. Perhaps it is up to Back Benchers to pressurise the Treasury to ensure the success of that bid. The Health and Safety Executive has to ration funds, mainly because it does not have the resources to pursue prosecutions. Last year, 1,500 prosecutions out of a total of 2,000 were successful. That can be seen as good or bad: prosecution is not the only way of making progress, but it can be important in extreme cases. We must bring transgressors before the courts, but not enough of them are being put in that position.
The courts let the Health and Safety Executive down by the penalties that they impose. The accurate figure for fines is not just below £5,000 across the board, as we should not include large fines of £100,000 or more. A simple calculation of what someone would be paid by an insurance company for losing a finger shows that an
338WH
employer is asked to pay less than an insurance company. That cannot be right. It is not a practical deterrent.
Many other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall conclude. I am grateful to the Government for this debate. The subject may not be glamorous, but it is massively important, so I congratulate the Minister. He said that the newest and possibly greatest challenge is occupational health, but there is nothing new about the issue. Ever since the old nursery rhyme "Pop goes the weasel" was written, we have known that occupational hazards kill our fellow citizens. Occupational health is a new challenge only because we have not attended to it before. It is, however, an enormous challenge and we must get it right, because otherwise we are taking part in the brutal slaughter or the erosion of the health and quality of life of many of our fellow citizens. That cannot be just.
4.5 pm
Mr. Mark Prisk: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), and promise that I will not jump up and down on the subject of industrial tribunals. He has seen me do that too often and too recently, so I shall behave myself on that issue. I am aware of the time and will attempt to be brief, but I wish to preface my remarks with an apology, because I may not be able to stay for the whole of the debate.
Many hon. Members have said that health and safety is vital to all our constituents. I am sure that all hon. Members have had tragic cases brought to them, some of which involve negligence, some are genuine accidents and some are due to poor working practices. Fortunately, the record of Conservative and Labour Governments is generally good on this issue. During the last 10 years of Conservative government the number of fatalities halved to 249 in 1997. Clearly, that is still too many, but it compares well with the 1,310 fatalities in Germany in the same period. Good progress has been made, and the Labour Government elected in 1997 inherited a generally good situation, although not across the board.
The Government plan to pursue further changes. In December 2000, they announced a new health and safety Bill, and we await action on that. I welcome the intentions that underlie the "Revitalising Health and Safety" programme, although the Minister will understand that I am not thrilled at the prospect of another Government 10-year plan. I hope that it does not suggest a lack of urgency on the part of the Government on what are important issues.
Several guiding principles must be followed when shaping health and safety legislation or developing initiatives. One of those is the test of reasonableness. I suspect that, in the past few days, we have all reminded ourselves of the 1974 Act. The important opening principle set out in that Act is that all employers should provide, as far as reasonably practicable, a healthy and safe workplace. That test of reasonableness is critical, because it seeks to balance definable risks against the practical actions necessary to minimise risk. I am wary of suggesting that risk can be completely eliminated.
We must get the balance right, or we risk ending up with silly extremes that undermine the whole argument for health and safety. A case was brought to my

339WH
attention recently that involved a man who was refused a job because he was too tall. A misinterpretation of the regulations led to concern that he would damage his back. I am sure that all hon. Members are familiar with similar cases, and I do not wish to involve the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) in a debate, but I am sure that no such concern would apply to me.
We must avoid extreme cases. Yesterday, an announcement was made in Brussels of the introduction of the physical agents vibration directive. Although we await the final details of the directive, as I understand from some of the reports, if it were to be enacted as it stands someone using a road drill could not do so for more than 47 minutes in a working day. Clearly, such a situation would be unacceptable. I cannot imagine how the Government would ever get their road building programme under way.
Mr. Clapham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Prisk: I will not give way because of the time pressure.
I am aware of the potential cost of the directive. Can the Minister confirm that the cost of implementing it would be between £3 billion and £4.8 billion, as the HSE has set out? Will he tell us if and when the Government intend to enact the directive? I believe that there is a maximum three-year period. Do the Government intend to enact it as it stands, or will they review its proposals? Can the Minister guarantee that the Government will not try in any way to gold plate or enhance the nature of the directive, if and when it is implemented? Gold plating, to which several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), have referred, is an important and worrying matter that we must bear in mind. We must ensure that regulations are not disproportionate to the risks involved.
Another principle of good health and safety initiatives is that legislation should set minimum standards. If we are over-prescriptive in our legislation, or if the standards set are unrealistically high, that can be counterproductive and undermine good will. That good will is essential, because without it, the ability to create a culture that embraces the idea of a healthy and reasonably safe working place is undermined. That is why I welcome the partnership approach in some of the Government's initiatives.
I am a chartered surveyor by profession, so the construction industry is familiar to me. The working well together initiative is a good example of active partnership in a sector that needs much work. However, only with leadership from within the industry can such initiatives succeed. I hope that the Minister will agree that work by organisations, including the National Federation of Builders, is helping to provide that important leadership.
I ask the Government to recognise the need to ensure that the regulatory burden is appropriate and, in particular, to have due consideration for small businesses. Last year, 4,642 new regulations were implemented, which could represent a considerable burden for small businesses. In framing health and
340WH
safety legislation, I ask Ministers always to bear in mind the problems of the smallest firms, especially those with less than 10 employees.
On that note, I welcome the publication of the Government's regulatory reform action plan, with its proposals to reform the complex fire and safety legislation. At present, there are some 120 different measures relating to that. I am pleased to see plans for consolidation, but that is only the beginning. There is much, much more to do.
My final point on the framing of Government policy for health and safety legislation is to stress that there is no such thing as absolute safety. We should always make that clear. Accidents will happen, as hon. Members have said. They happen in the workplace and elsewhere. It is important that neither the legislation that we pass nor the language that the HSE and Government use encourages the belief, even inadvertently, that we can create absolute safety and somehow insure against all risks. I genuinely believe that that could encourage people to be less careful, which, ironically, would be counterproductive to what we are trying to do in the first place.
The United Kingdom under both Labour and Conservative Governments has a generally good record. Creating healthy and relatively safe workplaces is very important. I call on the Government, in developing their policies, to ensure that they recognise the test of reasonableness in the measures that they introduce and in their implementation. They should accept that legislation should establish minimum standards, and that good will and voluntary good practice are just as important as legislation. They should also ensure that they never encourage a notion of absolute safety, because if they do, they will undermine their good intentions.
4.14 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: I declare an interest as I chair the all-party group on health and safety, and the Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians sponsors my constituency party. I also want to thank the Minister for his hard work in ensuring that interim measures were introduced to pay compensation under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 to people suffering from mesothelioma cancer, who are awaiting next month's hearing in the House of Lords. That was an important development.
I want to refer briefly to construction, but I shall avoid going over ground that has already been covered. I shall also discuss the need for an increase in the number of Health and Safety Executive inspectors. Finally, I want to talk about the role of the trade union safety representative, which needs to be enhanced. Before I do that, I want to refer to a couple of points, one of which was made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and the other by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk).
I refer the hon. Member for Cotswold to several recent reports, one of which was from the interim chemical review committee, which is a committee of the United Nations environment programme. It suggests that all forms of asbestos should be subject to international trade controls to eliminate the risk

341WH
associated with the material. Studies in France and Japan suggest that white asbestos is clearly a carcinogen. It may not be as dangerous as blue and brown asbestos, but none the less it presents a danger.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford referred to the new directive, which is likely to come in, to protect people who use vibrating equipment. Has the Minister considered gold plating that directive? There are already 113,000 claims registered by men who are suffering from vascular and neurological damage from using vibrating tools in the mining industry. If the hon. Gentleman were to come and sit with me on a Saturday morning at my surgery, he would see men whose fingers are like four white stubs. They come to see me about the arrangements for paying compensation. We must ensure that that directive is effective. If it is to be effective, the Minister needs to consider its application carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) stated that there have been 105 deaths in the construction industry in the past year. As he knows, the Deputy Prime Minister was so shocked by the appalling statistics covering the construction industry in the past 10 years that in February 2001 he arranged for a construction summit, which resulted in an action plan being drawn up to be applied to the industry. It would have involved all partners, but unfortunately the Construction Confederation has withdrawn from that partnership. A number of pilots were to have been set up across the industry, but the Construction Confederation has for some reason decided to withdraw its participation. Will the Minister try to persuade that body to become involved again and get the pilots back on track, because they present a real opportunity to take positive action? We should take a radical look at the construction industry and consider how we can persuade employers, unions, the HSE and insurers to work together to ensure that we attain a culture in which the number of accidents in construction is cut.
I turn to the argument for an increase in the number of health and safety inspectors. I take note of the Minister's comments on the bidding process. The strategic plan for 2001–04 includes the projection that the issuing of notices and prosecutions will increase by 14 per cent. and 10.5 per cent. respectively. However, the HSC data for 2000–01 show that the HSE is likely to fall short of its projections. If that were to happen, it would be because there were too few inspectors.
I refer the Minister to the campaign being conducted by Prospect, the trade union that represents health and safety inspectors. It calculates that, for an extra £35 million, the number of inspections could be doubled. At present, a factory works unit can expect a visit from an HSE inspector once every 10 years, but the extra investment would cut that by half. I ask the Minister to consider the serious proposals that Prospect has made, and the possibility that we could double the number of inspections for that outlay.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the inspections should be targeted at those companies that have a bad health and safety record, so that if there were a serious breach of health and safety,
342WH
the company could be inspected every six months or every year? If there were no serious breach, a company could be inspected every three or five years. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that might be a constructive approach?
Mr. Clapham: We certainly need to ensure that there is service right across the industry. The HSE may consider how it could ensure that a company with a bad record was inspected more regularly than others, but we would still need across-the-board inspections. We should leave the HSE to draw up its agenda for dealing with companies with a worse record
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right in saying that we must have universalism. Advice is needed in the agricultural sector, as it is a dangerous sector in which to work, although it is not always recognised as such. However, the most important issue relates to occupational health, which concerns long-term chronic illness and death, rather than injuries. That is why we need universal inspection.
Mr. Clapham: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. While we are speaking about occupational health, I refer the Minister to the fall in the number of people covered by occupational health schemes. I read somewhere recently—I regret that I cannot remember the reference—an article containing statistics provided by the Government's chief medical officer. It stated that, in the past 25 years, the number of people covered by occupational health schemes has fallen from 52 to 32 per cent. That is why we need more inspectors. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. We do not want a repeat of the problem that afflicts my constituency and all mining areas, where cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have resulted in 177,000 claims being registered. In my constituency, we have the highest rate of disability anywhere in the country. That is the legacy of the coal mining industry.
I believe that occupational health schemes should be plugged into teaching hospitals and universities. The coal mining industry had an occupational health scheme that was second to none, but it failed to link up with teaching hospitals and universities to ensure that longitudinal studies were undertaken. As a result, tens of thousands of men left the industry each year due to disability. The occupational health scheme never drew the connection between the numbers leaving and chronic bronchitis and emphysema. It is important that where schemes operate, they are linked to teaching hospitals and universities.
I now turn to the announced role of the health and safety representative. Health and safety legislation brought many improvements. One of the best improvements was the trade union health and safety representative, who was trained and was able to ensure that risk in the work place was mitigated. We now need to consider carefully how we enhance that role. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) suggested that trade union safety representatives should be given the right to stop the job. Trade union representatives in Australia already have that right, and it would be a step forward in tackling some of the current difficulties in United Kingdom work places, particularly in construction.

343WH
When the Minister considers new legislation, will he bear the railways in mind? The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) referred to the rail industry. There is concern about drivers' hours, which are not covered by European regulations because they were excluded from the original directive. The new directive introduced in 2000 could be extended to cover them. Will the Minister consider that carefully? I am told that the 1994 regulations that apply to train drivers and their hours are not suitable. Train drivers work long hours, and Lord Cullen made reference to that when he reported on the Ladbroke Grove accident. Will the Minister consider extending the new directive to cover train drivers' hours?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we proceed, it may help those present if I indicate that I intend to call the Minister at 5.20. Hon. Members can see how many of their colleagues want to contribute, and may tailor their contributions accordingly.
4.29 pm
Mr. Mark Field: I confess that it is with a certain amount of trepidation that I stand to say a few words. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) has been a regular jousting partner of mine in the Standing Committee on the Proceeds of Crime Bill—I am not sure that it has been an equal contest. He came to me first thing this afternoon and said: "Well, it is health and safety. Are the Tories in favour or against?" I would like to think that he was only joking, because we clearly take such matters seriously. I will canter through what I was going to say in a few minutes because I appreciate that many other hon. Members want to have their say.
One difficulty with health and safety is that it is all too often trivialised. Today's front page of The Daily Telegraph—not natural reading for Labour Members—makes great play of the EU directive on physical vibration. Perhaps I am being flippant, but considering the state of London's roads, at times I would be grateful if workers were at their drills for as long as 47 minutes in one day.
I take on board the comment by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) that health and safety is a major issue that has affected the mining industry. I hope that it will not be trivialised, but raised in importance. I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) who said that too often insufficient resources are put into the enforcement of rules and regulations, particularly for the planning side of local government.
I was grateful that the Minister recognised that the private sector has an important role to play in partnerships. The construction industry is particularly important, and I have already made it clear that it is a big industry in the Cities of London and Westminster, where we have an unacceptable number of fatalities.
Next door to the offices that I occupied when I ran a business before entering Parliament last June was a large construction site—indeed, those who have recently travelled two or three miles eastwards will have seen that much of the City of London is a construction site. Two
344WH
or three high-profile accidents on that site led to fatalities, and I talked to safety representatives about what had happened.
There seemed to be no real evidence that consultancy status had had a particular effect. The problem was that relatively young construction workers who were on drugs or had been drinking fell from great heights to their deaths. I do not want to trivialise the issue, and I accept that management should have ensured that employees were not putting themselves at such risk.
Risk is an inherent part of daily life, and we cannot reduce it to nil. It is difficult for hon. Members, but particularly for Labour Members, to fully appreciate that accidents will happen, some of which will be fatal. Related figures on risk have been put into statistical terms for the rail industry, which has been given the prospect of enormous investments in new and innovative safety schemes. Inevitably, the railway industry—I am not attaching blame to the Government for this—must take a sensible view on risk, because all modes of travel have risks. A certain number of deaths per 1 million passenger miles is inevitable. That is not to say that great care should not be taken; many recent incidents on the railways have been due to individual driver error or human error.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) hit the nail on the head when he talked of the importance of common sense in examining all health and safety issues. As I said, prior to entering Parliament, I ran a small business—an office business with a dozen staff. I was worried about the level of over-regulation. I was one of two directors and we moved office on three occasions during my seven or eight years there. On each occasion, small-scale internal works were carried out in the offices, and health and safety officials had to visit our site several times to sign bits of paper. At one point, we put a kitchen in for the good of employees, and we had to have a health and safety inspection.
I had no objection to health and safety inspections or the bureaucracy that went with them. However, such inspections in tandem with payroll costs and further regulations cause great difficulty for a small business. I tried to quantify how much of my time as a director was taken up by Government regulations. It was about 10 or 15 per cent., plus time spent dealing with payroll and VAT issues. That is of great concern.
I would like to think that I was a model employer, and that most of my former employees would be happy to agree with that thought. However, it is easy to see that such a burden falling on the shoulders of a director in a relatively small business—perhaps even smaller than the one that I was trying to run—could cause real problems with profitability, particularly if the economy began to slow down.
Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman may or may not have been a model employer, but he certainly is a model Tory. I asked, half in jest, if the Tories were for or against health and safety, after listening to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). It is clear that they are against it, because the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), whose greatest risk is detergent burn from laundering cash, has not accepted that rules and regulations must be made in considerable detail. Otherwise, employers cheat; they

345WH
often cannot be trusted to be decent and to abide by rules. In such circumstances, bad employers benefit to the disadvantage of good employers.
Mr. Field: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has such low regard for employers. I think that the overwhelming majority of businesses are run entirely in the right way. If the hon. Gentleman feels that strongly about private employers, why is he not pushing much harder to ensure that Crown immunity is withdrawn? Clearly, the same concerns should apply to the public sector.
I appreciate that time is getting on. I shall wind up with this last thought, which is slightly outside the issue of health and safety at work. Many of the new norms for health and safety at work may apply to the private property rental sector. If we are to encourage affordable housing in London for the public sector workers who may require it, there is a risk that a significant number of the directives that apply to businesses will also apply to, and be gold plated in, the housing rental market. I hasten to add that I have no interest whatever in that market, but a private Member's Bill is being introduced. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the debate.
4.37 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) should not be duped by an individual piece of scientific or medical work. Some people still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe, that AIDS is not caused by a virus and that adult cells are better than stem cells.
We do not know how much blue and/or brown asbestos people have been subjected to, and we do not know whether they are an important part of the etiology of mesothelioma. I revere the odd dissident, but the balance of evidence is that white asbestos is involved in the etiology of mesothelioma. One must accept a consensual basis of science and medicine; that is what most people put to the test. For example, I know that the triple vaccine is much better than the single vaccine at preventing infection. We must not be fooled by the odd individual piece of work. Indeed, it is not the chemistry but the shape of the particle that is important, so there is no need to refer to chemistry. It is how the crystal is formed and shaped and its needle-like properties that induce health problems.
In the interest of allowing other Members to speak, I will make just one or two quick points about health and safety. Some people think that we are lucky not to be living in the age of the industrial revolution, and that we no longer have six-day weeks, 13-hour shifts and child labour, but I am not sure that such conditions do not still exist in many areas of the country. Seventy-one per cent. of people who fill in forms in workplaces report ill health due to their work. I am prepared to believe that their irritability, fatigue, sleeplessness, back pain and individual problems are related to their workplaces.
The social class basis of ill health and accidents persists. It has been the same since statistics were first calculated. Those who live in deprived areas, who have low-paid work, who live in poverty conditions, who
346WH
work in the areas of the country where jobs require low skill or low industry, suffer more ill health—and so do the children. That statistic has not changed, whether it is for cancers, accidents or whatever. People in social class V are less advantaged than those in social class I. It has always been like that, and whenever politicians and trade unionists suggest changing health and safety conditions, business always screams blue murder and fights the improvements inch by inch, whatever they are.
The Government must treat health and safety much more seriously. They have committed themselves to tackling health inequality. The gaping divide between the health of those who are well off and those who are poor—we now call them socially excluded—is still part and parcel of Britain today, and it must be eliminated. Many new problems are appearing in British workplaces. Stress and mental health problems are starting to appear. Musculo-skeletal disorders have been mentioned. Violence and fooling in workplaces is a major problem, due to bad management. The organisation and downsizing of companies is edging many workers towards breaking point. We still overwork in this country. We still have the longest hours in the European Union, and we do more work for less pay. Sickness absence and suchlike problems are combined with unhealthy workplace practices.
Occupational health services are unevenly distributed. They are common only in large, unionised workplaces, with 96 per cent. of the health sector, but only 48 per cent. of education and 35 per cent. of the voluntary sector covered. Not all occupational health schemes offer the same services. Surveys suggest that although most offer first aid, proactive work such as health surveillance is offered by only half, and only a third offer advice about the prevention of injuries. Occupational health services are more often involved in disciplinary matters than in rehabilitation. That means that they are busier trying to get rid of people who suffer ill health than helping people back to work. The TUC is calling for a legal requirement that employers should have such a rehabilitation policy as part of their safety policy.
Occupational health should feature much more in the education and training of doctors. All doctors will come across people whose health has suffered due to their work. The HSE has been working with the General Medical Council to get more occupational health work in the curriculum for doctors, and I hope that medical schools will help in that. It is beginning to have some success. I welcome those developments, and I urge the GMC to adopt the proposals forthwith.
A more holistic and proactive approach could be taken to occupational health. I highlight that fact with some recent research on violence and mental health care. Violent attacks might be a special case in terms of health and safety, but as the violence task force recently pointed out, that problem is more prominent than was thought. It affects not only mental health workers, but social workers, care assistants, the police, medics, teachers, parking wardens, staff at benefit centres, and even Members of Parliament. Workers in call centres comprise one in 50 of the British work force, and they complain of frequent verbal abuse.
A clear holistic and proactive approach to the problem has been taken up by the nursing unions and nursing councils. They have become involved in

347WH
assessing the prevalence of the problem. The training of staff, the design of buildings, the analysis of NHS policies and the identification of risk factors all feature in that report. It found an amazing fact, which I quote from the report. An anonymous person says:
"Throughout my 25 years in the health service I have probably been involved in about 40 fire drills—but I've never experienced a fire! I've been on about eight resuscitation study days, but I've never had to resuscitate anybody!"
However, she says that she is subjected to violence at least three times a week in her workplace—the South London and Maudsley in-patient mental health unit.
I urge the Government to consider the new problems that are emerging with occupational health and with the new diseases. Some issues involve more than hard hats—sad as the problems in the mining industry are and difficult as it has been to achieve the present legislation to deal with them. We must continue to work on those issues, but in any health and safety initiatives we must recognise and do something about the new diseases and health problems.
4.45 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I welcome the debate. If anyone had any doubt about the position of the two main parties, they had only to listen to the constructive speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and the disgraceful speech made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). If the Opposition are serious about becoming closer to the trade unions, his speech was not the way to go about it.
I shall focus on fatal accidents and corporate manslaughter. Before I became a Member of Parliament I was a personal injury lawyer—I suppose that I still am, as I am a partner in a firm, but I have not had any cases since I was elected. My constituency is sponsored by the GMB. During my professional life, I represented many families bereaved by avoidable accidents. Coincidentally, the first fatal case that I dealt with fell on the same day as the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 came into effect, 1 October 1978.
The fatalities with which I was involved—the deaths of individual employees, motorists and pedestrians—usually went unremarked in the press. However, the feelings of loss and the sense of injustice suffered by the victims' families were the same as those of people whom I helped who had lost loved ones in major incidents such as the Zeebrugge ferry disaster or the King's Cross fire.
During my investigations, I inspected what was left of King's Cross tube station three days after the fire. Nothing that I had previously experienced could have prepared me for the sights and smells of the fire's devastation. As I took statements from victims, distraught relatives, firefighters and tube staff, and as I sat day after day through the 93-day public inquiry and repeatedly heard of the failure of the senior management of London Underground, it struck me as outrageous that neither the company nor any of its managers would face criminal proceedings for the 31 deaths. That was because of the inadequacy of the criminal law.
The same problem prevailed after the Zeebrugge ferry disaster. In his inquiry report into the disaster, Mr. Justice Sheen said:
348WH
"All concerned in management, from the members of the board of directors down … are guilty of fault. From top to bottom the body corporate was infected with the disease of sloppiness … The failure on the part of … management to give proper and clear directions was a contributory cause of the disaster."
The prosecution in that case also collapsed because of the same inadequacies of the criminal law. Those inadequacies have been highlighted recently by railway disasters such as the Ladbroke Grove rail crash.
It is not only the headline-grabbing fires and rail crashes that concern me. In the past 10 years more than 3,000 people have been killed at work, and hundreds of members of the public have met their deaths due to corporate neglect. Last year there was a 32 per cent. increase in the number of fatal accidents at work. Public confidence in industry and in the enforcement authorities suffers when the perpetrators of serious accidents escape prosecution on a technicality, rather than having their culpability tested in court to the same standards as apply to a private individual on a charge of manslaughter.
Only three companies have been successfully prosecuted for manslaughter. OLL Ltd. was prosecuted for the Lyme Regis bay disaster. The second case involved Jackson Transport, a young employee of which was drenched in a deadly chemical when wearing only a boiler suit. The third was in August, when a construction worker fell from the barn that he was building, where he was working with no safety equipment whatever. The company suffered a £25,000 fine, and that was the end of it.
Those three convictions expose the absurdity of the law of corporate manslaughter as it stands. Corporate guilt rests entirely on someone being able to prove the individual guilt of a senior company officer. However reckless or grossly negligent the company as a whole, it will escape conviction if no individual person—no "controlling mind" of the company—can be found guilty of manslaughter. The law is thus biased against small "one-man band" companies, in which it is easier to identify the individual manager or director to blame. Large companies escape because the accident is due not to the fault of an individual, but to the collective failure of the company's management systems. The bigger the company, the less chance there is of a successful prosecution.
I believe that only imposing duties on the most senior officers of a company will ensure that safety is given the same priority as profit. Safety awareness, and the great responsibility that it entails, should lie with those at the top—the chairman and chief executive—not with the employees, such as train drivers or ships' crews, who are always put up as the fall guys.
In 1996 the Law Commission recommended proposals for reform. When we were elected in 1997 an interdepartmental working group was set up. On 1 February 2000, the Select Committee report on the Health and Safety Executive recommended that the Government introduce legislation on corporate killing as soon as possible.
On 18 April 2000 I introduced a ten-minute Bill with a threefold purpose. It would have created a new criminal offence of corporate killing when the conduct of a company's management fell far below that which could reasonably be expected. Secondly, if a company were

349WH
convicted of corporate killing, the court would not only have been able to punish the company severely, it would have had the power to order the company to put right the failings that had caused the death. Thirdly, it would have imposed on the senior management of the company—its chairman and managing director—an overarching responsibility for the health and safety of its work force, and, equally importantly, that of the public. When companies kill, it would have put their directors in the dock to answer for their actions and failings. If convicted, they would have faced not only the full rigours of the law, but the equally important power of the court to order them to put matters right for the future.
This is not about bashing responsible companies, it is about promoting safety. Most companies do a good job, and look after their employees and the public properly. However, some do not, and they use loopholes in the law to escape their just desserts. After I introduced that Bill, I received a letter from a Home Office Minister, who said that the Government accepted the principles behind it and confirmed that the Government would deliver—they were aware of the need to reform the law, and the Bill had added to their desire to do that.
In May 2000 a consultation paper was issued, containing many excellent suggestions. However, it would not have penalised directors for personal liability, other than by disqualification. That was a serious weakness in the proposals. The consultation ended in September 2000. Of the 166 responses, only one employer organisation was opposed to the new offence; everybody else was broadly in support. I was pleased to see the commitment on page 33 of our general election manifesto last year that:
"law reform is necessary to make provisions against corporate manslaughter."
I tabled a question after the election and was told in June 2001 that the Government intended to publish final proposals as soon as they had completed consideration of the responses to the consultation. They were determined to bring forward clear and workable legislation that would hold undertakings to account for serious wrongdoing and would legislate as soon as parliamentary time allowed. In November 2001, I was again told that legislation would be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allowed.
Two days ago, I was told that since the end of the consultation period the working group had met three times and had had informal meetings, no further meetings were scheduled and its report was expected soon; we might expect to see a digest of responses published shortly. There was no reference to legislation as soon as time allowed. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that was an oversight.
It is six years since the Law Commission published its proposals in March 1996. The subject has become such a popular and important topic for discussion that it is even on the A-level law syllabus now. It is a year and a half since the end of the consultation, and in that time hundreds of people have died at work because of the failings of businesses that kill their employees—and their customers as well—instead of providing the services that people are entitled to expect.
350WH
The longer it takes for legislation to be introduced, the longer it will be before senior directors take their responsibilities seriously, and the more people will die. If we are to prevent further tragedies such as the Hillsborough disaster, the Clapham, Southall or Paddington train crashes and the Bradford City, King's Cross or Piper Alpha fires, tough new laws must be introduced, fast.
4.53 pm
Rob Marris: This has been an interesting debate. It has also been educational, not only in terms of the very positive contributions from Labour Members, but because Opposition Members, particularly Conservatives, have a very old fashioned view of health and safety at work. They appear to believe that health and safety are in opposition to profit, but that is not the case. In the modern work force, those two things go together. Progressive employers know that if their employees are off sick the company is not making a profit. In the modern work force, employees are not only the most important asset of a company, but highly trained and hard to replace, because unemployment under the Labour Government is so low, especially in the south-east.
Might I presume to educate Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown)? When the hon. Gentleman referred to white asbestos—I am aware that The Daily Telegraph has been running a campaign on the issue—he talked only about mesothelioma. He appears not to know that asbestos blue, brown or white—can also cause lung cancer, pleural plaques and asbestosis.
The hon. Members for Cotswold and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) referred to the recent European Union talks on vibration and the pending directive, and the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford seemed very surprised that the directive could lead to a 47-minute-a-day maximum for somebody using a road drill. I dealt with thousands of cases of vibration white finger before I was elected last June, so I know about vibration, and that limit is not at all unrealistic. My recollection is that in scientific terms the threshold is 2.8 ms2, which is a measure of the vibration. Often, when that threshold is taken into consideration, the time limit for use comes down to well below an hour.
I want to talk about insurance, particularly employers' liability insurance—a subject on which I hope the Minister and his colleagues can help me, either today or later. A scandal has been brewing in the insurance industry, particularly over asbestos liabilities, which were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Cotswold. Some insurance companies are crying the blues about having to pay out for asbestos claims. They took the premiums, but now they do not want to pay out, and the Government have had to set up the financial services compensation scheme as a kind of industry pool. Labour Members, and Conservative Members, too, I think, will know about the fiasco of Chester Street Holdings, which was a stitch-up by Iron Trades Insurance. Because of that episode, the taxpayer had to bail that company out to some extent, and set up the industry body.
We need an employers' insurance bureau like the motor insurance bureau. The financial services compensation scheme applies only when the employer

351WH
and the insurer have gone bust. It does not, as I understand it, apply when the employer did not have any employers' liability insurance, or the insurance company could void the policy, or the policy could not be traced. Such gaps will become increasingly apparent in asbestos cases because of the length of time—the gestation period—between when a person worked for a company and when their first symptoms emerge, which can be anything between a minimum of about 14 years and a maximum of about 40 years. We need proper records.
In that vein, I urge the Government to consider changing what limited companies and other organisations have to include in their annual reports. For example, in their annual return to Companies House, limited companies should include details of their employers' liability insurance and their public liability insurance so that subsequent claimants could find out who the insurers were.
In the annual return companies should also name the officer responsible for health and safety. That officer should remain responsible until Companies House is notified otherwise, so that should that officer leave the company, the onus would be on him to ensure that the records were amended. That would allow private or HSE prosecutions of an individual, leading either to imprisonment or to heavy fines.
We need a nominated individual in companies, and each company should include in its annual return an annual safety audit. I urge that on the Government. The inclusion of the insurer's details, the name of the officer responsible for health and safety, and an annual safety audit should cover not only limited companies but all firms, partnerships and bodies corporate in both the private and the public sectors—and the Crown.
I welcome much of what has been said today, and what is in the papers published on this issue by the Government, particularly on corporate killing. I also salute the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on that subject. Sadly, he probably has more experience of that than any other Member of Parliament.
I welcome what the Government are saying about imprisonment, because if employers realised that they might be imprisoned, that would give health and safety legislation some teeth. That sanction should be more frequently used, alongside heavier fines. I also welcome what the Government are saying about extra money for the Health and Safety Executive, and the fact that a bid is being made in this year's spending round.
I urge the Government to continue putting their own house in order as regards the health and safety of Government employees. According to the TUC brief, few Departments have yet set targets in line with the national targets set out in the "Revitalising Health and Safety" initiative for reducing the number of major injuries, occupational illnesses and the resulting sickness absences. Perhaps the Minister will disclose more about that at the conference on 29 May.
I have some sympathy with the position adopted by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford about our health and safety legislation. It needs to be simplified, and I urge that on the Minister and his colleagues. However, simplification should not weaken the legislation but strengthen it. I broadly agree with the
352WH
hon. Gentleman's proposition—although perhaps not on the detail—that some of the complexities of health and safety legislation can be counterproductive.
I often use the analogy of the video remote control of 10 or 12 years ago. It had about 100 buttons, but because it was so complex, people would use only four of them. The video companies got smart to that and started producing controls with only 10 buttons, and people now use six of them. The relative rate of use has increased massively, but so has the absolute rate. People use it more because it is easier. That is the sort of simplification that we want in health and safety legislation, because private and public sector employers would know more clearly where they stand and would be more encouraged to implement and follow it to help prevent the industrial diseases and ill health that plague our economy.
5.1 pm
Mr. Tom Watson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) said, this has been an instructive debate. We now know that the Conservative party has no intention of introducing new health and safety legislation should it have the chance, and we have also learned that it has little understanding of the conditions faced by thousands of people in the workplace.
My hon. Friend identified an often overlooked aspect of health and safety—work-related accidents on the road. Such accidents have claimed a dramatically high number of lives and the figure is on the increase. The facts are startling. More than 1,000 people die every year in work-related road accidents in company cars or commercial vehicles. That is more than the number of people killed in all other workplace and industrial accidents. Statistically, company car drivers are the worst motorists. Last year almost one in three was involved in an accident, and they are significantly more likely to have been involved in a road accident than any other group of drivers.
It is not surprising that overburdened workers are putting their lives at risk on the roads. The RAC motoring report for 2002 found that the pressures of modern workplace life and the constant lack of time tempt drivers into unsafe driving habits. Three quarters of company car drivers make telephone calls while in their cars. More worryingly, 16 per cent. of them admit that they are always put under pressure by their bosses to drive to meet deadlines. More than 1 million company car drivers admit to falling asleep at the wheel during the past year—so much so that they have to make a conscious effort to stay awake.
The statistics demonstrate the financial incentive for companies to change. The average cost of repairing a company car is £750, and it is nearly £1,400 for a van and £4,500 for a commercial vehicle. Those figures take no account of the cost of lost productivity and employee time. Whether they are the employers of some of the country's 400,000 taxi drivers, the nation's half a million heavy goods vehicle drivers or the owners of the 2.5 million company cars, the responsibility on British firms is clear.
As the Minister said in his opening speech, the Government are committed to health and safety at work. We have a legal infrastructure. I believe that we

353WH
do not need to change the legislation; we need instead to change company culture. With 90 per cent. of businesses not taking action on the health and safety of their employees on the road, we need a wide-ranging comprehensive overhaul of attitudes towards off-site health and safety.
The current voluntary approach means that few companies take action to tackle the problems of safety that affect so many of their employee drivers. Many companies hire staff without giving any thought to managing their risk of accidents, beyond a cursory glance at a driving licence. Fewer than one in five drivers at work has received any training in safe driving or health and safety. The RAC, whose expertise stems from its role as an employer of some 3,000 fleet drivers, with a 1,200-strong patrol force, runs risk assessment and driver training sessions to improve the safety of its drivers. Its drivers are deemed to be at work from the moment they enter their vehicles, and health and safety obligations are applicable from the moment that the engine is switched on.
I admit to hon. Members that I am about to take part in a similar driver safety test at the RAC headquarters in Bestcot in the west midlands, not too far from my constituency, so when I have completed that, I may be able to offer hon. Members a few tips for driving home to their constituencies after weary debates on a Thursday afternoon.
Research shows that businesses with high awareness of health and safety issues also tend to have a better road safety record, so if the general standard of a company's health and safety ethos can be raised, measures aimed at preventing accidents on the road are also more likely to be implemented. The Minister mentioned sectoral targets. Perhaps we should consider trying to establish some voluntary targets for road safety throughout industry.
It should no longer be acceptable for a company's health and safety obligations to begin and end at the reception desk or factory gate. Reducing work-related road accidents will be a win/win situation. Society will benefit from an increase in general levels of road safety and fewer instances of personal tragedy, and business will benefit from reduced losses and increased productivity.
5.6 pm
Roger Casale: I start by declaring an interest because my trade union, the GMB, supported my campaign and supports my constituency party. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) rightly said, the interest that I am declaring is really a common interest rather than a vested interest, because we all have an interest in raising standards of health and, safety.
It was interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) mentioned long car journeys at the end of the parliamentary week. One of the advantages of being a London MP is that we do not have to make those long trips, which are very dangerous for many hon. Members. We should consider many aspects of what goes on at the House of Commons from a health and safety point of view—not just the hours,
354WH
but the mice that run around in the restaurants. I wonder what the Health and Safety Executive would say about that.
That is not a flippant point. If we are to show that we are committed to health and safety, which is about setting standards, we must demonstrate that those standards apply across the board. Conservative Members have been somewhat tested today. Every time anyone intervened on the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), he seemed to move on to a different line of argument. If Conservative Members are so committed to health and safety, why have certain issues been neglected for so many years, not least in the Palace of Westminster?
This is an issue about standards—standards that not only protect people at work, but improve quality, and so can boost profitability as part of a sustainable approach to developing a modern economy in the years ahead. In determining those standards, we should fully involve the trade union movement. There should be no retreat from the progressive raising of those standards, but we should also recognise that to do that requires a proper level of funding. That is why I have written to the Minister on behalf of my trade union, the GMB, to call for more funding for the HSE, and why I am calling for such an increase now.
In the few remaining minutes, I want to put forward a second argument in favour of increasing funding to the HSE. Like many Government agencies, the HSE relies on a charging regime to generate some of the revenues that it needs to carry out its work. In some cases, the charging regime operates unfairly and can distort or deflect from the HSE's priority of protecting the work force. In recent years, executive agencies and quangos have been pushed towards being more market-oriented. That trend was inherited from the Conservative party. Some have been privatised, while others have been pushed towards the market and appear so to relish that new freedom that they are more interested in making money than in carrying out their public duties. Although I greatly admire the work of the HSE, we must closely examine how the charging regime operates in practice.
I want to comment on the new tighter charging regime and the control of major accident hazards, and I listened carefully to representations from Calor Gas on how that regime applies to it. I do not have time to provide full details of the Calor Gas case, but we must ensure that the HSE operates in the public interest, especially in relation to its charging regime. I will write to the Minister about this case, and I look forward to his reply.
The charging regime is important, as it boosts HSE revenues, but there should be clear criteria for judging whether such regimes operate in the public interest. One such criterion should be predictability. Another criterion should be transparency, which is important in any approach to better regulation. As I will set out in my letter to the Minister, the current charging regime as it applies to Calor Gas fails on both those criteria.
There is also a danger that a charging regime for inspections introduces a perverse incentive. There may be cases where the HSE attempts to inspect and report more than necessary simply to make charges. I do not cast aspersions on any individuals in the HSE, but that general tendency may well be there. We certainly see

355WH
similar examples in the way in which parking tickets are issued in parts of Westminster. Adding a profit motive can distort the HSE's key priorities of protecting the work force and ensuring public safety.
The Health and Safety Executive also runs its own disputes panel. Given the new human rights legislation, we must consider whether that is fair or whether it is better to have an independent critical examination of disputes.
Will my hon. Friend say when there is likely to be a comprehensive review of charging, and can he assure us that parties who are not subject to the overall duty to maximise receipts will undertake that review? Will he also ensure that the review will result in a charging system that does not carry the perverse incentive to prolong inspections unnecessarily, and that there will be a system of independent benchmarking of the Health and Safety Executive's work? Will he review the unsatisfactory disputes panel procedure, which at first sight appears to be a breach of human rights? An independent, impartial tribunal might be the effective antidote to the distorted priorities of maximising receipts. As I said, the Health and Safety Executive's overriding priority should be to protect and safeguard the interests of the work force. That is they way to secure the public interest in the longer term.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must declare that I have entered my interests in the Register of Members' Interests as I am a chartered surveyor. I do not believe that what I have said today impinges on that in any way, but I make that declaration for the sake of clarity.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That point of order is duly noted.
5.15 pm
Dr. Whitehead: As declarations are the order of the day, I should put on the record my constituency development agreement with Unison.
This has been an interesting and useful debate. It has been informed by several Members who have a deep knowledge of the subject, a commitment to the furtherance of health and safety and an understanding of the issues that we face. I am grateful to those Members for their comments, which when the record of the debate is read will be seen as a substantial contribution. It will be difficult to respond in detail to all the questions that have been asked, but I shall be happy to write to hon. Members if I cannot cover particular matters. I imagine that that will result in lively correspondence.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the Minister include me in the correspondence? I represent Grangemouth, where the test case for the charging of Calor Gas took place. The changes affecting the Health and Safety Executive would impact greatly on the work force in my constituency.
Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend may wish to write to me on that matter. As charging has been mentioned, I should say that the Government intend to review the operation of the charges once they come in, especially in
356WH
connection with the Control of Major Hazards Regulations 1999. Indeed, a review is under way and will report shortly on the effect in several charging areas. I imagine that that will in form the efficacy of the charging regime. The HSE is not under any injunction to maximise profits or income. The purpose of charging is to recover the costs of inspection, not to make a profit, and the charging regime is enjoined to work on that basis.
There is no doubting the role of health and safety in improving people's quality of life. Everyone has the right to carry out their job in safety, and we have heard different examples of the misery that health and safety failures can cause workers and their families, and the accidents that occurred, but which could and should have been prevented. We have heard about concerns that have perhaps been neglected hitherto, including accidents involving employees engaged in transport activities out of the workplace. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) paid particular and informed attention to that issue, which is an important part of health and safety although the accidents do not happen in the workplace.
I emphasised that it is not only workers who benefit from good standards in health and safety, but employers too. I opened the debate by noting that proper health and safety systems are not a financial burden for businesses; but an essential investment. We must be clear that good health is good business. Partnership, as the hon. Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) said, is an important element in ensuring that good employment practice and health and safety go hand in hand. Good standards in health and safety contribute to competitiveness by ensuring that there is a fit, available and motivated work force, preventing the economic and social exclusion of families, minimising the costs of accidents and lost working time, and promoting productivity and competent management.
I recognise that a key message from the debate is the clear responsibility of Government to enforce standards where necessary and appropriate. That point was emphasised in different ways by my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) and for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) among others. Enforcement is a powerful deterrent, and is crucial to deal with those who flout the law and commit the most serious breaches.

Earlier this year, the Health and Safety Commission published its revised enforcement policy, which has been designed to achieve an effective balance in what enforcers do. I support that approach. I am pleased that HSE inspector numbers have increased to deliver on the commitment to secure compliance outlined in the HSC and HSE strategic plan.
In the short time left, I shall deal with some of the specific points that were raised. It is not true—the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) suggested that he had information on this—that the United Kingdom Government initiated the new European Union directive on vibration. However, I was involved in discussing elements of the directive, and we have ensured that it works proportionately and provides measures that fully protect the work force and ensure that exposure over time and various other factors are taken into account. The discussions, particularly

357WH
between the Commission and the European Parliament, and the resulting directive, have been a good method of ensuring that an area that was scandalously neglected is now protected.
I think that my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) and for Barnsley, West and Penistone mentioned the effects of white finger and people who are effectively paralysed as a result of exposure to whole-body or other forms of vibration, such as hand-arm vibration, in their working life.
I regret that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) did not concentrate on the issues that I thought he might have discussed. He spent quite a lot of time talking about white asbestos. I suspect, although I have no concrete evidence, that the information that has informed the debate on white asbestos that a number of Conservative Members have recently taken up arose from several reprehensible articles that recently appeared in The Daily Telegraph under the byline of Christopher Booker. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman may have used some of that information, among other things, to cast doubt on the independence of certain studies of the effects of white asbestos exposure.
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that white asbestos poses a significant risk to the health and safety of those who are exposed to it, including a risk of mesothelioma, albeit not to the extent that blue and brown asbestos do.
Mr. Lloyd: I am troubled because there seems to be an impression that mesothelioma is a serious disease, whereas asbestosis is a minor, throwaway condition. For the benefit of the debate, will my hon. Friend confirm the fact that asbestosis is a cruel, crippling and vile condition?
Dr. Whitehead: Yes. I could not describe asbestosis more exactly than my hon. Friend has. Exposure to white asbestos, and indeed all forms of asbestos, produces not only mesothelioma but asbestosis. Moreover, when one is dealing with white asbestos it is almost impossible to be sure that it is just white asbestos, because it is almost always contaminated with elements of blue and brown asbestos. The idea that one can treat it as if it were talcum powder is fanciful.
What sticks in my throat about that campaign are the aspersions that it casts on the independence of those making claims about the effect of white asbestos on health and safety. The information for Mr. Booker's articles comes from a Mr. Bridle, who happens to be a representative of the Asbestos Cement Product Producers Association in the UK, which claims to have representatives in 17 countries and links with the Asbestos Institute in Canada. Mr. Bridle is not exactly an independent witness in his own right.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister talks about independent scientific advice, but I have already pointed out that two of the individuals on whom he relies heavily for his answers are employed by the HSE. There is a wide body of scientific opinion throughout the world on this matter. I have already mentioned that the Environmental Protection Agency in America has
358WH
reduced its health and safety requirements for white asbestos. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, will the Minister accede to my request this afternoon to have an inquiry into the whole matter?
Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Member may be aware that there have been a number of inquiries around the world. Although one or two individuals are pursuing inquiries and claim that white asbestos does not have a significant effect on the health and safety of those exposed to it, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that white asbestos, although less potent—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: What evidence?
Dr. Whitehead: Some of the reports that the hon. Gentleman has quoted do not say quite what he thinks they say about exposure to white asbestos. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence clearly shows that white asbestos has an effect. I believe that the action that we have taken on white asbestos is right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone and the hon. Member for Twickenham talked about roving safety representatives. I am happy to confirm that the innovative pilot on worker safety advisers is now getting under way; it was slightly delayed by the withdrawal of the Construction Confederation. I am pleased that other construction companies have come forward so that the pilots, which I believe will produce a great deal of information about the effect of worker safety advisers, will now take place across a full range of sectors of industry, including construction.
A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North and for Barnsley, West and Penistone, raised issues of occupational health. The Government's occupational health strategy was outlined in "Securing Health Together", which was launched in July 2000. It stated that employers should be fully aware of opportunities for rehabilitation, and the targets for reducing ill health and ensuring that people do not lose days at work but can return to work after rehabilitation. That is an important element of the occupational health regime, which is sometimes regarded as less important than safety. I regard the two elements of health and safety in the workplace as equally important.
A number of hon. Members also referred to staffing and new legislation. I mentioned in my opening remarks that our aim is to ensure that funding for appropriate staffing is available to the HSE. It is good that 111 new inspectors have been recruited recently. With more inspectors, and an increasing number of reports following inspections, we are ensuring that resources are used well. I hope that they will be used well in future.
Mention was also made of corporate manslaughter legislation. As a result of the responses to the consultation paper, the Government certainly intend to look closely at that complicated and sensitive issue, to get it right. Hon. Members asked whether directors should be scapegoated. It is important that they are not scapegoated in that way, and that legislation does not cause that to happen. The Government still aim to have legislation on the statute book as soon as parliamentary time allows—
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

DEFENCE

  Depleted Uranium
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has for further research into depleted uranium; and if he will make a statement. [44012]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has funded extensive research into DU munitions over many years. This work has been complemented by studies on the health and environmental consequences of the testing, development and battlefield use of DU munitions carried out by a range of governmental and non-governmental bodies in the UK and overseas. These studies, and the Royal Society's report, all indicate that the health risks associated with the battlefield use of DU are minimal, other than in a small number of very specific circumstances.

  Nevertheless, there are a number of areas where we believe that further research is desirable to enhance the database on which to make judgments weighing the potential loss of life arising from not using DU munitions in battle against any potential longer term impact on human health and the environment resulting from its use. Some research will aid MOD in any future test-range decommissioning.

  We therefore propose to carry out a programme of further research, which has been reviewed by the Royal Society, the Medical Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council. We have given veterans' representatives early sight of the programme. The full details of our proposals have been placed in the Library of the House. They have also been published on the MOD's website.

  Much of the work is in line with the recommendations of the Royal Society's report. In particular, we propose to conduct an epidemiological study to identify any links between exposure to DU and ill health, and a critical review of literature relating to the effects of DU inhalation on the pulmonary lymph nodes. We also intend to study the ways in which DU is transported from the point of introduction into the environment to the point at which it has the potential to affect the health of plant, animal or human life. Furthermore, we have already begun research into the corrosion and dissolution rates of DU in typical corrosion environments and in controlled laboratory studies. We intend to consider a range of soil types and profiles and marine environments in this work.

  In addition, we propose to carry out research into the operational role of DU munitions and consider alternative penetrator materials. We aim to conduct a radiochemical analysis of DU rounds and examine contamination in the barrels used to fire DU round. Further to this, we aim to review and address work being conducted by others on biokinetic modelling related to uranic materials.
  1180W
  These research activities are in addition to work that MOD is already undertaking. We have set up the independent Depleted Uranium Oversight Board, which includes independent members of the scientific community and veterans' representatives as well as MOD staff and is now overseeing the programme of work to devise a valid test for uranium isotopes in urine and a methodology for a voluntary DU screening programme for Balkans and Gulf veterans. We are developing our policy of biological monitoring for DU for troops on operations. We are also collecting data on the levels of DU in environmental samples in Kosovo. Annual surveys are already in progress at UK ranges where DU has been fired.

  It will be necessary to set priorities for funding each of the proposals, and re-assess their relevance and content as the research progresses.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for his Department in each of the last four years. [27914]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 30 January 2002,Official Report, columns 405–06W.

  A contract for a departmental taxi service for departmental staff has been in place since November 2001. No contract was in place before this. Expenditure against this contract for the current financial year to 13 February is £2,036. An additional £597 has also been spent outwith this contract.

  The figures exclude any amounts spent on taxi hire outside of this contract and reclaimed by officials as travel and expenditure. That information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were employed in a press or public relations function in his Department on 1 January in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002. [39936]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of people employed in a press or public relations function in the central corporate communications organisation of the Ministry of Defence is shown in the following table:

  Date

  Number of staff

  1 January 1998

  33

  1 January 1999

  34

  1 January 2000

  47

  1 January 2001

  45

  1 January 2002

  54

  Note:

  the figure for 1 January 1997 is no longer available.

  The permanent joint headquarters, the single services, agencies and regional defence press offices also employ personnel in the press and public relations function, many in a secondary role to their main task. Accurate figures for these could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  1181W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many press releases were issued by his Department(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [40030]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence press office issues all press releases on defence policy matters. The information is shown in the following table:

  Press releases issued

  1 May to 31 December 1997

  161

  1998

  202

  1999

  276

  2000

  238

  2001

  150

  The single services, agencies and regional defence press offices issue their own press releases. They also re-issue some defence policy press releases for local distribution. Accurate figures, which take account of any "duplicate" releases, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  HMS Sheffield
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if all the evidence held by his Department at the time of the inquiry into HMS Sheffield was put before the inquiry; [R] [42609]

  (2) how many representations he has received in the last three years regarding the re-opening of the inquiry into the sinking of HMS Sheffield; and if he will make a statement; [R] [42611]

  (3) what evaluation he has made of the evidence gathered in the last 12 months into the sinking of HMS Sheffield; and if he will set up a new inquiry; [R] [42610]

  (4) if all the statements taken from the crew were later presented to the Board of Inquiry into the sinking of HMS Sheffield; and if he will make a statement. [R] [42607]

  Mr. Ingram
  As I informed the hon. Member in my reply of 9 July 2001,Official Report, column 365W, the Board of Inquiry into the sad loss of HMS Sheffield was conducted to the highest professional standards. It was the responsibility of the Board of Inquiry to ensure that it had all the information it needed to reach its conclusions about the loss of HMS Sheffield and to support its report and recommendations. This included interviews with 98 members of Sheffield's company. The Board had access to all available information and considered all the evidence that it believed to be relevant. As I informed the hon. Member previously, much of the information put before the Board of Inquiry remains classified. I am satisfied that the Board of Inquiry was conducted in a professional and proper manner and that no useful purpose would be served by re-opening this tragic incident. I am not aware of any representations other than those made by the hon. Member regarding the re-opening of the inquiry into the sinking of HMS Sheffield but this information would not be held centrally.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1133W on departmental expenditure limits, if the change in the capital element of the defence
  1182W
  departmental expenditure limit will be affected by the decision not to proceed with PPP for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency; and what effect the decision not to proceed with the PPP for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency will have on his Department's budget. [43391]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are proceeding with the DERA PPP as announced in the House on 6 March 2002,Official Report, columns 313–14W. Therefore, the change in the Ministry of Defence's Departmental Expenditure Limit in anticipation of a successful PPP is unaffected.

  Persian Gulf
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces are serving in the Gulf; and what has been the figure in each of the last four quarters. [41853]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of United Kingdom armed forces personnel serving in the Persian Gulf region fluctuates. Operational Detachments, Defence Attaches, Liaison Officers, Staff College students, training advisory teams and other service personnel are deployed, and their numbers are kept under review. In addition assets are regularly deployed and/or recovered for a variety of reasons; for example in September and October 2001 23,000 men and women were deployed to Oman for exercise Saif Sareea II.

  The number of Service personnel in the Gulf region at the beginning of March is approximately 2,100.

  Information relating to earlier periods is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are based in Kuwait; and how this figure has changed in the last three months. [41855]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 12 March there are 494 Service personnel based in Kuwait. On 4 January this year there were 496.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans he has in place to reinforce British troop deployments in the Gulf to support a United States strategy of pursuing military action in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [41856]

  Mr. Ingram
  We share the concerns of all responsible Governments about Iraq's relationship with terrorism as well as its development of weapons of mass destruction and the potential threat the Iraqi regime poses to the international community. We are conducting a range of contingency planning, to keep all of our options open. There has been no decision to pursue military action in Iraq.

  Interoperability
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo in terms of lessons for interoperability of equipment and personnel. [42950]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence constantly monitors the performance of our armed forces, including the interoperability of equipment and personnel. The
  1183W
  process for collecting and analysing the lessons learned from operations is well proven. The results of our most recent analysis of operations in Kosovo can be found in the MOD publication "Kosovo: Lessons from the Crisis". This has already been placed in the Library of the House.

  We are alert to the need to fine-tune our procurement priorities to take account of operational lessons learned. This is done in co-operation and consultation as necessary with our allies and likely partners.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure banking services are made available through the Post Office network; and if she will make a statement. [41916]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: All the major banks have agreed to make their own basic bank accounts accessible at post offices. This agreement is now subject to detailed commercial negotiations between Post Office Ltd. and the individual institutions. The Post Office is also in discussion with the banks about wider access to their other bank accounts. These 'network' banking arrangements are strictly a commercial matter between the banks and the Post Office.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to enable sub-postmasters to diversify the range of services available in their post offices; and if she will make a statement. [41915]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Post Office Limited continually seeks opportunities to widen the network's client base in order to develop new products and services which will benefit customers and to ensure a viable future for the post office network. The Horizon automated platform, in which the Government invested £480 million, and which computerised the whole of the post office network should help this expansion.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advertising budget will be made available for marketing the proposed Universal Bank Account. [41929]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The delivery of the Post Office Card Account (POCA) is a commercial matter for Post Office Ltd. Accordingly, the Department of Trade and Industry will not be making any financial provision for its marketing or advertising.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the average gap between men's and women's pay is in the Stockton, North constituency; [42395]

  (2) what plans the Government have to collate statistics on the gender pay gap in the Stockton, North constituency. [42396]

  Alan Johnson
  The Office for National Statistics publishes data on men and women's pay in the New Earnings Survey (NES). However, in the case of Stockton,1184W
  North constituency, the data are not sufficiently reliable for publication. Data are available for the north-east Government Office Region (GOR).

  According to the 2001 NES, average hourly pay for full-time employees, excluding overtime, in the north-east GOR, was £10.08 for men and £8.48 for women, a pay gap of £1.60 per hour.

  Current trends in women's individual incomes have been explored in two studies, published last year, by the Women and Equality Unit (WEU). Copies of these reports are available on the WEU website http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/publications/researchandpublications.htm.

  WEU Gender Briefing, which provides statistical briefing on the position of women compared with men in the labour market, is also available on the website http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/genderbriefing/home.htm.

  There are no plans to commission further research into the gap between men and women's pay in the north-east GOR.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans the Government have to commission data on the gender pay gap at regional and national levels; [41468]

  (2) how the average gap between men and women's pay at regional and national levels is calculated. [41467]

  Alan Johnson
  Estimates of earnings by gender, region, and country of the UK are available from the annual New Earnings Survey (NES). Comparisons of gender pay differences are calculated by comparing estimates of average hourly earnings excluding overtime for full-time employees, for those employees whose pay was not affected by absence.

  Current trends in women's individual incomes have been explored in two studies, published last year, by the Women and Equality Unit (WEU). Copies of these reports are available on the WEU website: http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/publications/researchandpublications.htm.

  WEU Gender Briefing, which provides statistical briefing on the position of women compared with men in the labour market, is also available on the website: http://www/womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/genderbriefing/hom.htm.

  There are no plans to commission further research into the gap between men and women's pay at regional and national levels.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to commission research into the gap between men's and women's pay in the Warrington, North constituency; and what the average gap is. [41441]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: The Office for National Statistics publishes data on men and women's pay in the New Earnings Survey. However, in the case of Warrington North constituency, the data is not sufficiently reliable for publication. Data are available for the Warrington unitary authority.
  1185W
  According to the 2001 New Earnings Survey (NES), average hourly earnings for full-time employees, excluding overtime, in the Warrington unitary authority was £11.78 for men and £9.14 for women, a pay gap of £2.64 per hour.

  Current trends in women's individual incomes have been explored in two studies, published last year, by the Women and Equality Unit (WEU). Copies of these reports are available on the WEU website: http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/publications/researchandpublications.htm.

  WEU Gender Briefing, which provides statistical briefing on the position of women compared with men in the labour market, is also available on the website: http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/genderbriefing/home.htm.

  There are no plans to commission further research into the gap between men and women's pay in Warrington.

  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the pay gap between men and women in(a) Warrington, South and (b) the north-west region; and if she will commission research into the gender gap between men's and women's pay in these areas. [42691]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The Office for National Statistics publishes data on men and women's pay in the New Earnings Survey (NES). However, in the case of Warrington, South constituency, the data are not sufficiently reliable for publication. Data are available for Warrington Unitary Authority (UA) and the north-west Government Office Region (GOR).

  (a) According to the 2001 NES, average hourly pay for full-time employees, excluding overtime, in Warrington UA, was £11.78 for men and £9.14 for women, a pay gap of £2.64.

  (b) Average hourly pay for full-time employees, excluding overtime, in the north-west GOR, was £10.93 for men and £9.01 for women, a pay gap of £1.92.

  Current trends in women's individual incomes have been explored in two studies, published last year, by the Women and Equality Unit (WEU). Copies of these reports are available on the WEU website. http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/publications/researchandpublications.htm.

  WEU Gender Briefing, which provides statistical briefing on the position of women compared with men in the labour market, is also available on the website http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/genderbriefing/home.htm.

  There are no plans to commission further research into the gap between men and women's pay in Warrington UA or the north-west GOR.

  Broadband
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of rural-based businesses have broadband internet access; and what her expectation is for change in that percentage over the next five years. [42002]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The Government have not made an assessment of the number of rural-based businesses with broadband access. A map showing availability of broadband services in the UK was
  1186W
  contained in the UK Online annual report and has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The report states that satellite and leased-line services are universally available and offer one of the solutions to the issue of rural provision.

  Fixed Wireless Licences
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she plans to take to dispose of fixed wireless broadband local loop licences unsold at the end of the recent auction round. [41907]

  Mr. Alexander
  An award process was opened on 15 October 2001 to give companies the opportunity to obtain the remaining fixed wireless licences in the 28GHz band when they consider that the time is right. Applications can be submitted at any time up until 14 October 2002.

  Coalfields (Small Business Service)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many small business service headquarters are situated in coalfield constituencies; [41820]

  (2) how many small business services have sub-offices in coalfield constituencies. [41819]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The SBS provides business support through contracts with Business Link Operators, five of which are situated in or have sub-offices in coalfield constituencies, as defined by 1991 ward boundaries:

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  Derbyshire

  South Yorkshire

  Staffordshire

  Chamber Business Services (Wigan).

  In total, 16 Business Link Operators cover the coalfield constituencies. These are:

  County Durham

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  Derbyshire

  Gloucestershire

  Greater Manchester

  Kent

  Leicestershire

  North Yorkshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Chamber Business Enterprises (Salford)

  South Yorkshire

  Staffordshire

  Tyne and Wear

  Tyneside

  West Yorkshire

  Chamber Business Services (Wigan).

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry further to her answer of 1 February 2002,Official Report, column 615W, on miners' compensation, what policy has been agreed for handling claims for loss of earnings from former mineworkers who are claiming for both respiratory disease and Vibration White Finger. [41969]
  1187W
  Mr. Wilson
  Where a former mineworker makes a claim for both respiratory disease and Vibration White Finger, VWF, and is entitled to loss of earnings or services, there may be overlap between the claims, which could result in double compensation. Discussions are currently taking place between the Department and the Claimants' Solicitors Group as to how to process these claims. The general damages element of these dual claims can be dealt with while discussions are in progress.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Child Exploitation
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she intends to take to prevent the future exploitation of children by aid workers in Africa. [40245]

  Clare Short
  UNHCR has undertaken to increase security in the camps, improve aid distribution, introduce a code of conduct and improve reporting procedures. A full investigation is underway by the UN Office of Investigation and Oversight Services. The UN Secretary General and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees have declared a policy of "zero tolerance" for this kind of abuse. We shall monitor closely UNHCR's implementation and development of the Framework for Action it has adopted to ensure that the exploitation of children exposed in their recent report is stopped. We shall encourage all implicated organisations urgently to review their policies and to ensure that they have appropriate procedures in place to prevent the recruitment of individuals who might exploit their positions of power and trust, and to detect and remove any individuals found doing so.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what guidelines her Department issues to aid organisations working with children regarding sexual exploitation. [40241]

  Clare Short
  We do not issue specific guidelines to partners on the conduct of their staff. It is the responsibility to each agency to set and monitor its own code of conduct. We shall encourage those implicated in the recent UNHCR/Save the Children-UK report urgently to review their policies and procedures for the detection and prevention of any exploitation by their staff of their positions of power and trust.

  Angola
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much humanitarian aid the UK has sent to Angola in each of the last 10 years; and if she will make a statement on(a) the humanitarian situation in Angola and (b) international efforts to alleviate the situation. [42521]

  Clare Short
  The UK has spent 595,000 in 1992–93; 13,240,000 in 1993–94; 8,158,000 in 1994–95; 11,101,000 in 1995–96; 5,898,000 in 1996–97; 1,500,000 in 1997–98; 2,500,000 in 1998–99; 3,236,000 in 1999–2000; 2,240,000 in 2000–01. The final figure for the current financial year is not yet available, but is likely to be similar to last year. The humanitarian situation in Angola remains dire. The UN estimates that over 1188W
  4 million have been displaced from their homes due to the conflict there. Repeated international attempts to gain access to those most affected by the war were thwarted by the military actions of both sides. The recent death of the UNITA leader Jonas Savimbi provides an opportunity to find a lasting peace. The Government and UNITA must seize this chance to bring an end to the suffering of the Angolan people.

  Cameroon
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to achieve the target of universal primary education in Cameroon. [42766]

  Clare Short
  None. Our direct support to poverty reduction efforts in Cameroon is focused on the forestry sector and we have no plans to expand into other areas.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department has provided to the Government of Cameroon(a) bilaterally and (b) multilaterally in each of the last five years. [42763]

  Clare Short
  We do not currently provide any budgetary support to the Government of Cameroon. Our direct assistance to Cameroon has been in the form of project-related support working with both Government and non-Government partners, mainly in the forestry sector.

  Bilateral expenditure in Cameroon over the last five years is as follows:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Total DFID programme1

  1996–97

  2.2

  1997–98

  2.1

  1998–99

  1.9

  1999–2000

  2.4

  2000–01

  3.1

  1 These figures do not include non-DFID debt relief

  The UK's imputed share of multilateral assistance' given to Cameroon during 1995–99 (the latest year for which figures are available) is as follows:

  $ million

  Calendar year

  EC

  UN

  World Bank

  1995

  4.4

  1.7

  0.6

  1996

  4.4

  2.7

  0.0

  1997

  2.4

  1.8

  0.6

  1998

  3.2

  4.9

  0.0

  1999

  5.7

  5.3

  0.0

  1 Based on DAC figures

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what actions her Department is taking to combat Government corruption in Cameroon. [42762]

  Clare Short
  We are actively engaged in the preparation of a Forest and Environment Sector Programme, which will include measures aimed at combating corruption in the forestry sector. We also currently fund an independent monitor of illegal logging. This support recognises the importance of the forestry sector for the Cameroonian economy and for poverty
  1189W
  reduction, but that corruption in this sector is a major problem. More generally my Department has supported the inclusion of benchmarks on good governance, as part of the assessment of Cameroon's eligibility for debt relief under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, and will encourage full implementation of the poverty reduction strategy.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to bring good governance to Cameroon. [42761]

  Clare Short
  Our programme of support to Cameroon is focused on the forestry sector, which is acknowledged by Cameroon's interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper as being important for poverty reduction. We are actively engaged in the preparation of a Forest and Environment Sector Programme, which will include measures aimed at improving governance in the sector, and currently fund an Independent Monitor of illegal logging. We continue to play an active part in international community discussion of the Poverty Reduction Strategy process, which includes benchmarks on good governance.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the level of Government corruption in Cameroon. [42764]

  Clare Short
  We have done no independent assessment of the level of government corruption in Cameroon. However, it has long been recognised by the international community that steps need to be taken to reduce the high levels of corruption that have hampered Cameroon's development. The Poverty Reduction Growth Facility (PRGF) and the interim Poverty Reduction Strategy paper linked to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, include commitments by the Government of Cameroon to tackle corruption and improve governance.

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of United Kingdom funds for reconstruction in Afghanistan have been allocated to micro-credit agencies. [42760]

  Clare Short
  At present, no United Kingdom funds for reconstruction in Afghanistan have been allocated to micro-credit agencies.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on mortality rates in refugee camps in Afghanistan in the last six months. [42765]

  Clare Short
  Comprehensive data on mortality rates in internally displaced persons (IDPs) camps in Afghanistan are not available. However, as access has improved in Afghanistan, agencies have been able to provide better-targeted assistance and to monitor the situation more effectively. For example, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has reported a significant decrease in mortality rates at Maslakh camp outside Herat. An estimated 180,000 displaced persons, mostly from Ghor and Badghis provinces, have been living in Maslakh camp since September 2000. By December 2001, the crude mortality rate was 0.47 per 10,000 people: a death rate of approximately 50 persons per week. This figure has now halved to approximately 0.2 per 10,000.
  1190W
  The Immediate and Transitional Assistance Programme for the Afghan People, prepared by the UN in consultation with the Afghan Interim Authority, sets out priorities and objectives for the population of Afghanistan in the period up to December 2002. One of the key activities in the health sector is to strengthen the population and health statistical data system in Afghanistan. This will help build national capacity to collect and compile urgently needed data on the health needs of the Afghan population, and monitor mortality rates across the country.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the potential security concerns for refugees returning to Afghanistan. [42757]

  Clare Short
  The volatile situation remains a serious concern for refugees returning to Afghanistan. Sporadic fighting in some areas, continuing lawlessness, as well as the presence of mines and unexploded ordnance, continue to prevent unhindered access to parts of Afghanistan. Because of the precarious security situation in some parts of Afghanistan, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is cautioning Afghans against spontaneously returning to certain areas. Provinces and areas on UNHCR's 'caution' list include: Paktia, Khost, Zabul, Uruzgan, Nimroz, Helmand, Farah, bra Bora and Sholgara.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what provision is being made for the safety of refugees returning to Afghanistan. [42758]

  Clare Short
  The Afghan Interim Administration (AIA) and the international community are committed to improving the protection of at-risk civilians. This includes creating conditions conducive to the voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) in safety and dignity to their places of origin. Our support to agencies such as UNHCR, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), and the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) will help contribute to this important objective.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action is being taken to improve provision of public health clinics in Afghanistan. [42756]

  Clare Short
  At the Tokyo conference, the Afghanistan Interim Administration (AIA) identified the restoration of basic services, through an urban reconstruction programme to restore utilities and support municipal authorities, as one of their main priorities. In line with this, the United Nations (UN) Country Team for Afghanistan has prepared the Immediate and Transitional Assistance Programme for the Afghan People 2002 (ITAP) which prioritises the health sector as a key focus within Afghanistan. This includes activities to improve the provision of public health clinics.

  My Department is continuing to channel support through the Red Cross movement and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who are focusing on the rehabilitation of hospitals and health care clinics in order to provide essential, primary health care. We have recently provided an additional £2 million to the UN World Health Organisation (WHO) for the provision of technical and material support to the Ministry of Public Health.
  1191W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the number of refugees who have returned to Afghanistan in each of the last six months. [42759]

  Clare Short
  Since October 2001, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimate that approximately 330,000 Afghans have returned to Afghanistan from neighbouring countries. There were no major returns in October 2001; approximately 65,000 Afghans returned during November and December 2001; over 100,000 in January 2002; approximately the same number in February 2002; and almost 65,000 people returned to Afghanistan from 1 to 10 March 2002.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress made in achieving the international development targets, with particular reference to ending child poverty by(a) the UK and (b) the international community. [42674]

  Clare Short
  There are two child specific Millennium Development Goals, reducing the under five mortality rate and ensuring that children of both sexes will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling. However all the MDGs clearly have significant impacts on child poverty.

  The contribution of the UK to making progress towards these targets is outlined in DFID's public service agreement. The results of our efforts so far will be published next month in our departmental report.

  Global progress towards the goals is set out in the joint UN and World Bank report 'A Better World For All.' The report indicates that significant progress has been made towards halving the proportion of people whose income is less than a dollar a day, a target that will greatly impact on child poverty. Progress has also been made on a more limited basis, on reducing child mortality rates and increasing in the numbers of boys and girls enrolled in primary school.

  The UN General Assembly has agreed to produce annual reports on progress in reaching the MDGs. This information should serve to motivate the international community and strengthen and better target the efforts made to support progress towards the MDGs. We are currently working with other donor partners, the UN, World Bank and Development Assistance Committee to increase the capacity of developing countries to monitor statistics on a country basis, to support international monitoring of the MDGs, and to enable developing countries to develop national strategies for poverty reduction and sustainable development on the basis of accurate and current information.

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many and what proportion of the staff of her Department are(a) job sharing, (b) term working and (c) engaged in another form of flexible working. [42425]
  1192W
  Clare Short
  Details of DFID's job sharers, and part time workers engaged in flexible working are contained in the following table. There is no central record of full time staff engaged in flexible working. We have no staff who are term working.

  Figure

  Total number of staff in DFID headquarters1

  1,597

  Numbers of job share staff

  18

  Percentage of total job share staff

  1.1

  Numbers of staff engaged in other flexible working patterns

  105

  Percentage of total staff engaged in other flexible working patterns

  6.6

  1 London and East Kilbride

  Humanitarian Aid (Central Asia)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much humanitarian aid has been given to(a) Iran and (b) the northern border states of Afghanistan formerly part of the Soviet Union in the last 12 months. [42954]

  Clare Short
  In the last 12 months, my Department has provided over £1.7 million of humanitarian assistance to Iran, primarily for the benefit of Afghan and Iraqi refugees. Our support, which has been channelled through UN agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), has focused on emergency food assistance, and improvement of health care and education services for Afghan and Iraqi refugees.

  In the same period, we have provided £2.2 million of drought relief assistance to Tajikistan. This has been channelled through UN agencies, the Red Cross and NGOs for food assistance, water and sanitation improvement, and livelihood and agricultural support.

  In addition, the £60 million that we have disbursed in response to the crisis in Afghanistan since September 2001 includes a number of regional grants to humanitarian agencies. A proportion of this amount has therefore been spent in countries neighbouring Afghanistan, including Iran and the northern border states of Afghanistan.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Union
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2002, ref. 40849,Official Report, column 395W, if he will conduct an internal analysis on the future of the various recurring annual direct and indirect (a) costs and (b) benefits arising from UK membership of the European Union. [42608]

  Peter Hain
  No.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 18–19 February; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting and record; and if he will make a statement. [42704]
  1193W
  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the UK at the Council. The GAC adopted the "A" points listed in document 6220/02. It also noted the resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament listed in document 5079/02 PE-RE 5. Copies of these documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. No formal votes were taken. Conclusions were reached by consensus on a number of issues, as follows.

  Zimbabwe

  The Council heard a report from the head of the EU election observation mission, whom the Government of Zimbabwe had refused to accredit. Ambassador Schori's report confirmed that the conditions did not exist for the EU to mount a credible mission. On 28 January, the Council had agreed that the consultations with Zimbabwe under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement would be closed and targeted sanctions implemented if the Government of Zimbabwe prevented the deployment of an EU election observation mission, or if it prevented the mission from operating effectively, or prevented the international media from having free access to cover the election, or if there was a serious deterioration in the situation on the ground, or if the election was assessed as not being free and fair.

  At the February GAC, the Council concluded that the principles enshrined in Article 9 of the Cotonou Agreement had not been respected despite all efforts made by the European Union through Article 8 dialogue and later, Article 96 consultations. Consequently, and in the light of its January agreement, the Council decided to close Article 96 consultations and take appropriate measures. Furthermore, the Council decided to implement targeted sanctions in the form of an embargo on the sale, supply or transfer of arms and technical advice, assistance or training related to military activities and an embargo on the sale or supply of equipment which could be used for internal repression in Zimbabwe, as well as a travel ban on persons who engage in serious violations of human rights and of the freedom of opinion, of association and of peaceful assembly in Zimbabwe and a freezing of their funds, other financial assets or economic resources. The Council also decided to withdraw without delay all EU electoral observers still present in Zimbabwe.

  Work in other Council formations

  The Council took stock of a presidency report on work on the most important issues currently under discussion in other Council configurations, including topics being considered in the ECOFIN, Agriculture, Justice and Home Affairs and Education Councils. The Council noted that a number of these issues were of particular relevance in the run-up to the spring European Council in Barcelona. The Council also agreed to monitor the work of the Convention on the future of the European Union.
  1194W
  Barcelona European Council

  The presidency outlined plans for practical organisation of the Barcelona European Council, noting that the GAC on 11–12 March would focus on substantive preparations. The Council agreed that the Barcelona European Council should take a number of concrete steps on priority actions to be taken to ensure delivery of the EU's economic reform strategy set at the Lisbon European Council in 2000.

  The Council noted that separate meetings with Heads of State or Government, Foreign Ministers and Finance Ministers from the candidate countries would be held during the Barcelona Council. The Council was informed that a summit with social partners would take place on 14 March with the participation of the President of the European Council, the President of the Commission, the Prime Ministers of Denmark and Greece, as well as their respective Employment Ministers.

  Enlargement

  The Council noted a Commission presentation on financial aspects of the enlargement negotiations, following recent discussions by Foreign and Finance Ministers. The Council invited the Commission to submit draft common positions for the negotiating chapters on Financial and Budgetary Provisions, Agriculture and Regional Policy and Co-ordination of Structural Instruments as soon as possible, taking into account the Council's deliberations. The Council recalled that timely production of these draft common positions was essential in order to keep to the road map laid down by the Nice European Council and the timetable for concluding negotiations agreed by the European Councils in Goteborg and Laeken. The Council reaffirmed that the negotiations will be based on the present acquis and on the financial framework ceilings decided by the European Council in Berlin in 1999.

  Economic and social cohesion report

  The Council heard a Commission presentation of the update to the second report on economic and social cohesion. The report updates the data presented in January 2001, analyses potential disparities in a Union of 25 and summarises the debate on future cohesion policy after enlargement. The Council instructed the Permanent Representatives Committee to examine this report with a view to further work by the Council in due course.

  Debate on the effectiveness of the EU's external actions

  The Council held a policy debate on ways for the Union to achieve more effective and comprehensive external action on the basis of a presidency paper and report by the Commission. Ministers addressed the relationship between development and foreign policy objectives; the need for improved flexibility and responsiveness; and the need for speedy delivery of external assistance and the quality of such assistance. The presidency suggested in particular that the Secretary-General/High Representative and the Commission looked further at specific areas of work for improving effectiveness, including the use of case studies, improved co-ordination in the field, better use of decentralisation and improving inter-pillar co-ordination. The outcome of this work should be submitted to the May GAC, at which an initial review could be undertaken with a possible further review in the autumn.
  1195W
  Middle East Peace Process

  The Foreign Secretary and the German Foreign Minister both briefed partners on their visits to the middle east. The GAC reaffirmed the EU's view, as set out in the Laeken European Council declaration, that a political perspective must be established if there is to be sustained progress. It was accepted that an improved security situation was an essential first step and this required determined action by the Palestinian Authority. The importance of close EU-US co-ordination was stressed. High Representative Solana was asked to return to the region.

  UN Financing for Development conference

  The Commission presented proposals for increasing the quantity and quality of official development assistance (ODA). The Council invited the Permanent Representatives Committee to examine the Commission's proposals before the March General Affairs Council so that the Union can make an important contribution to the success of the UN conference, to be held that month in Mexico, through the adoption of positive initiatives.

  Western Balkans

  High Representative Solana briefed Ministers on developments in Montenegro. On Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), High Representative Petritsch outlined the recent achievements and the likely future challenges. He confirmed that he would step down by the end of May, to be succeeded by Lord Ashdown. The Council expressed its willingness to appoint Lord Ashdown as the EU Special Representative in BiH (EUSR) when he becomes High Representative. The Council announced the EU's readiness to ensure the follow-on to the UN International Police Task Force (IPTF) in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 2003.

  Relations with third countries on combating terrorism

  There was a brief discussion on the basis of a presidency paper on options for including counter-terrorism co-operation in future EU/third country agreements. Officials were invited to continue work, on the basis that there should be rapid progress to incorporate the EU's commitment to counter-terrorism into future agreements.

  Meetings of EU Defence Ministers

  The Council endorsed a presidency proposal that Defence Ministers should be able to meet under the aegis of the GAC, for discussion of military/capabilities aspects of ESDP.

  Nepal
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on human rights abuses in Nepal. [42602]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have not received any formal representations about human rights abuses in Nepal, although my officials are in contact with human rights NGOs and regularly discuss the situation with them.

  We are very concerned about reports of human rights abuses committee by the Maoists. NGOs estimate that they may be responsible for the summary execution of 400 civilians.

  We are aware of allegations in the Nepalese media of human rights abuses by the Royal Nepalese Army. We are concerned about this, and have made our views clear to the Government of Nepal: I myself did so during my
  1196W
  visit to Kathmandu last month. Prime Minister Deuba has repeatedly stressed that abuses will not be tolerated. The Nepalese authorities have professed the need for improvement, and have undertaken to co-operate with the international community to achieve this.

  The British embassy's human rights adviser in Kathmandu is monitoring the human rights situation closely and developing strategies to assist the Nepalese Government and civil society in tackling human rights issues.

  People's Front
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral statement of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 130, by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, if he will make a statement on the status of the People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine. [43561]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) is not an organisation proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. The group is none the less a terrorist entity which, for example, claimed responsibility for the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Ze'evy in October 2001. The Bank of England froze the assets of the PFLP in 2001 as a result of its involvement in terrorism.

  Hawk Aircraft
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Hawk aircraft have been exported to India in the last six months. [42767]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None.

PRIME MINISTER

  Air Travel
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government have taken a decision on future provision for long-range royal and ministerial air travel. [44087]

  The Prime Minister
  After 36 years' service the VC I Os were withdrawn from their ministerial transport role at the end of 2001. The royal family had ceased using the VC10 nine years ago. The Government considered a number of options for future long-range royal and ministerial air travel. These included chartering commercial aircraft, adapting an existing RAF aircraft, and procuring a new aircraft.

  The Government have decided that when a dedicated aircraft is needed it will charter a commercial aircraft. In line with current practice, any accompanying business-people or press will usually be asked to pay their share of costs. Where there are security concerns RAF planes will be used. We assess that this approach is likely to be the most cost-effective. In many cases a dedicated aircraft is not necessary and Ministers and members of the royal family will continue to travel on scheduled flights.
  1197W
  For the longer-term the Ministry of Defence will consider whether cost-effective provision of royal and ministerial air transport might be incorporated within the contract for the RAF's future strategic tanker aircraft, due to enter service towards the end of this decade.

  Social Services Spending
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 280, regarding social services spending, how much funding has been provided by (a) central Government and (b) local authorities through council tax in the last five years. [42636]

  Prime Minister
  Social services funding is increasing by around 20.4 per cent. in real terms between 1996–97 and 2002–03; an average of 3.1 per cent. each year, compared with an average of 0.1 per cent. annual real terms growth between 1992–93 and 1996–97.

  Local government's social service responsibilities are funded through general grant as part of the local government finance settlement, ring-fenced grants provided by the Department of Health and local authorities through council tax. Decisions on the budgets local authorities allocate to particular services are for local authorities to make bearing in mind their statutory responsibilities, their priorities and the wishes of their electorate. It is not therefore possible to say how much funding for social services has been provided through council tax or general grant.

  General grant is distributed through standard spending assessments (SSA) formulae. The figures in the following table comprise personal social services SSA, which includes an assumed element for council tax, and ring-fenced grants paid by the Department of Health for social services in England. The figures exclude grants paid for social services by other Government Departments.

  £ million

  1997–98

  7,911.8

  1998–99

  8,479.8

  1999–2000

  8,862.9

  2000–01

  9,307.0

  2001–02

  9,957.2

  Downing Street (Charity Receptions)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will set out the procedure by which charities apply for receptions at 10 Downing street; [43306]

  (2) if he will list the charities for whom receptions have been given at 10 Downing street since May 1997. [43305]

  The Prime Minister
  The programme of events at No. 10 is designed to give access to as many people as possible. Events cover a very wide spectrum of charities including NSPCC, Barnados, Sargent Cancer Care for Children, Shelter, Help the Aged, and smaller charities such as Kids, Saving Faces and Contact a Family.

  As has always been the practice, it is open to all charities to contact 10 Downing street to apply to hold a reception which is then considered. The guests lists are drawn up by the charity, which also funds the event.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Official Visits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list the official visits to(a) Paris and (b) Brussels made by each Minister in his Department in 2001 and the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in his Department on the choice of mode of travel for such visits; [38151]

  (2) if he will list the official visits within the UK outside London made by each Minister in his Department in 2001, giving for each (a) the origin and destination and (b) the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in his Department on choice of mode of travel for official visits. [38187]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Since 1999 this Government have published an annual list of all overseas visits undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken since 1 March 2001 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  The additional detailed information requested in respect of UK travel is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Spring Supply Estimates
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the additional grants from the Scottish Executive in item lxxxi on page 8 of the Spring Supply Estimates. [40236]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The transfer of £1,293,000 to the Scottish Executive, reported at item lxxxi on page 8 of the Spring Supplementary Estimates, is in respect of rail freight facilities grant which, under section 211(4) of the Transport Act 2000, must be paid by the Scottish Executive.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the extent of the gender pay gap among staff in his Department. [40997]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government have committed Departments and agencies to review their pay systems by April 2003 and prepare action plans to close any equal pay gaps. The Cabinet Office issued comprehensive guidance in January 2002 to assist in these reviews.

  In advance of the Cabinet Office guidance and in conjunction with the local trade union side an equal pay review was instigated in the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Central) during the

  1199W
  2001 pay round, following guidelines contained in the Equal Opportunities Commission's code of practice. The outcome of this review is subject to the Governments commitment to review pay systems by April 2003.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many special advisers were employed by him and his predecessor(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive; and what the total amount spent on special advisers by the Department was in each of those years. [41256]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions employed a total of six special advisers between 1 May and 31 December 1997 at a total salary cost of £77,470. In 1998 a total of seven special advisers were employed (of whom no more than six were in post at any one time) at a total salary cost of £142,152. In 1999 a total of seven special advisers were employed (of whom no more than five were in post at any one time) at a total salary cost of £158,400. In 2000 a total of five special advisers were employed at a total salary cost of £197,092. In 2001 a total of eight special advisers were employed (of whom no more than five were employed at any one time) at a total salary cost of £132,278.

  Departmental Staff
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whom he has recruited to replace Jo Moore. [41677]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 908W.

  Jo Moore
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he consulted the Prime Minister on the future of Jo Moore after 11 September. [41283]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on 17 October 2001, Official Report, column 1165.

  Heathrow
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what projection he has made of the number of flights at Heathrow Airport in each of the next five years. [41888]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has imposed a condition on the planning consent for Heathrow Terminal 5, requiring that from the date the Core Terminal 1200W
  Building opens for public use, the number of occasions on which aircraft may take-off or land at Heathrow shall not exceed 480,000 during any period of one year.

  Airports
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of airport capacity in the south-east of England over the medium and longer terms. [41945]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study (SERAS) has evaluated a wide range of airport development options, providing different levels of capacity. A full public consultation on the short-listed options is scheduled for spring 2002. Decisions made following the consultation will feed into an aviation White Paper which we plan to publish later this year.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the sites that are being considered for new airports within the south-east of England. [41963]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 922W.

  Shoreham Harbour
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he has collated on the breakdown of harbour traffic throughput in Shoreham in the last year. [42325]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: In 2000, the latest year for which information is available, 1.8 million tonnes of traffic passed through the port of Shoreham. Of this, approximately 1.0 million tonnes were imports, 150 thousand tonnes exports and 0.6 million tonnes domestic traffic.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he has received from Shoreham Port Authority about their(a) debt levels and (b) bulk cargo levels for export and import. [42314]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: Information on debt levels at ports is not collected by my Department. In 2000, the latest year for which information is available, 0.7 million tonnes of bulk cargo were imported and 0.1 million tonnes of bulk cargo were exported.

  Disabled Facilities Grants
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how much money has been allocated to disabled facilities grants in this financial year; [42544]

  (2) how many disabled facilities grants have been processed for children in the last 12 months; [42542]

  (3) how many disabled facilities grants have been processed for (a) adults and (b) children in the last two years. [42543]
  1201W
  Ms Keeble
  The Government have allocated £87 million towards the expenditure by local authorities in England on Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) for 2001–02. This meets 60 per cent. of the total cost of such grants, the remaining 40 per cent. being met from elsewhere in local authorities' budgets. The latest estimate on the number of DFGs made in England is 28,097 for 2001–02. The Government do not collect data separately on the number of grants paid to adults or children.

  Scheme

  Allocation (£ million)

  Purpose

  Avon/Somerset/Gloucestershire

  16.900

  Joint training centre

  Cornwall

  12,257

  Estate management and replacement of fire stations

  Greater Manchester

  4.790

  Fire station/divisional headquarters

  London

  45.000

  Management and maintenance of vehicles and operational equipment

  North Yorkshire

  6.360

  Fire station/training centre

  Revenue support based on the level of PFI credits is paid once the scheme has come into operation.

  £560,000 in total was paid in grant in 1997–98 to meet the development costs for fire service pathfinder schemes, including the ones listed in the table.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1370W, on fire authority funding, if he will list the recipients of the extra £53 million announced for emergency planning, stating in each case (a) the name of the fire authority, (b) the amount awarded and (c) the intended use of the money in each case. [42943]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The additional resources will be used to procure new equipment, including decontamination facilities and personal protective equipment for firefighters, and to meet training and other revenue costs. Decisions on the deployment of the equipment and allocation of the funding will be taken in the course of procurement. The equipment will include:

  Large volume decontamination shelters and showers

  Water management equipment

  Ancillary equipment eg to provide power, heat and light

  Radiation survey meters

  Personal dosimeters

  Protective clothing

  Masks and filters for respiratory protection

  Transport facilities

  Communications and IT support.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people are employed in the fire service(a) in total and (b) broken down by (i) age, (ii) gender and (iii) ethnic background. [42925]

  Dr. Whitehead
  At 31 March 2001 there were 49,685 uniformed staff and 6,703 non-uniformed staff employed in the fire services of England and Wales. There were 1,866 women employed in the uniformed sector and 4,032 women employed in the non-uniformed sector. There were 613 minority ethnic uniformed staff and 293 minority ethnic non-uniformed staff.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the recipients of money within the Fire Service under the private finance initiative, stating in each case(a) the amount awarded and (b) the purpose of the award. [42924]

  Dr. Whitehead
  PFI credits have been allocated to the following fire service schemes:

  All fire services in England and Wales are required to provide annually to Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate statistical information about personnel employed, analysed by gender and ethnic origin. Data on the composition of the work force broken down by age are not held centrally.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what extra training has been provided for fire fighters since 11 September 2001, broken down by each fire authority. [42926]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Fire service personnel already receive training for dealing with terrorist and major incidents. Since 11 September fire authorities have been issued with guidance on mass decontamination methods. Additional funding is being provided and fire authorities are being encouraged to undertake training with other services and agencies. Details of specific training carried out by each fire authority are not held centrally.

  Housing Association Properties
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many housing association properties have been sold under the Right to Acquire provisions in each London borough in each year since the provisions came into force. [42968]

  Ms Keeble
  The Right to Acquire came into force on 1 April 1997. It gives eligible tenants of registered social landlords the right to purchase their rented home with the benefit of a discount. There have been 53 completed Right to Acquire sales in total from 1 April 1997 to the end of February 2002. 12 of these were in London boroughs, as follows:

  Completions

  1999–2000

  Redbridge

  1

  2000–01

  Bexley

  2

  Croydon

  1

  Haringey

  1

  Newham

  1

  Waltham Forest

  1

  1203W

  Completions

  2001–021

  Bexley

  1

  Ealing

  1

  Newham

  2

  Sutton

  1

  111 months only

  Council Properties
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many council properties have been sold under the right-to-buy provisions in each London borough in each of the last 10 years. [43946]

  Ms Keeble
  The information requested is included in the summary table referred to in my answer of 7 March 2002 to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney),Official Report, column 554W, which is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Flight Paths (Walthamstow)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes in flight paths into Heathrow have taken place within the last year that have affected flight paths above Walthamstow; and whether they are permanent. [42945]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Civil Aviation Authority has advised that apart from a short period following the terrorist attacks in New York on 11 September 2001 when there may have been a slight increase in the proportion of flights which overflew Walthamstow, there have been no changes to the flight paths into Heathrow in the past year.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many Members his Department employs in its Regulatory Impact Unit; and if he will make a statement. [42933]

  Dr. Whitehead
  DTLR's new Regulatory Impact Unit was established in October 2001 and consists of four officials, two full time and two on a job-share basis.

  This is more staff than in previous years and the unit is now a dedicated resource that covers better/regulation/regulatory reform issues only.

  Correspondence
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Warrington, North, dated 21 November 2001. [43131]

  Ms Keeble
  I have written to my hon. Friend today and I apologise for the delay in replying.

  A36
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Salisbury of 25 February 2001,Official Report, column 817W, for what reasons de-trunking negotiations on the A36(T) have been put on hold until early 2003. [43304]
  1204W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State confirmed in February 2002 that following placement of an objection to de-trunking of the A46/A36 by the South West Regional Assembly a further study into the management of the route and the traffic problems related to the route in Bath would be commissioned shortly. Formal appointment of a consultant to undertake the work is progressing with interviews of those firms shortlisted taking place soon. Not until this study had been completed, December 2002 in the current programme, would Bath and North East Somerset Council agree to continue with de-trunking negotiations.

  There are four other local authorities involved in taking over sections of the route on satisfactory completion of de-trunking negotiations. No serious obstacles to completing negotiations successfully with these remaining four authorities have been identified. Although this might suggest that a piecemeal de-trunking of the route is possible this would not be in the public interest nor would this course of action answer the Regional Assembly's objection.

  Freight Industry (Illegal Migrants)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on the freight industry of the actions of people attempting to enter the United Kingdom illegally; and if he will make a statement. [43033]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government recognise that the current disruption to channel tunnel rail freight services caused by would-be illegal immigrants attempting to board these trains on the continent is causing severe hardship to many businesses in this country which depend on these services. We are pressing the French Government at the highest levels to ensure that sufficient police resources are applied to address the problem so that normal freight services can resume as soon as possible.

  There is no evidence to date that the actions of people attempting to enter the United Kingdom illegally have had any significant impact on UK road freight operations.

  Electronic Voting
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1371W, on electronic voting, whether he undertook an assessment of the relative ability of different age groups to access electronic voting before introducing the pilot schemes. [43352]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Electoral Commission's evaluation of the electronic voting pilots will include an assessment of the impact of electronic voting on different age groups within the electorate. The traditional voting arrangements will remain available on 2 May for all voters in the areas where electronic voting is being trialed.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many planning applications for developments in areas of outstanding natural beauty have been called in since 1997; and how many of those were approved. [43390]
  1205W
  Ms Keeble
  We estimate that about 30 planning applications for developments in areas of outstanding natural beauty have been called in since 1997 and that, of those, around one-fifth have been approved.

  Harbour Boards (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by what means nominations were sought for places on harbour boards on the Isle of Wight; how many appointments he has made to such bodies since 1997; who the appointees were; and what were their terms of office. [43353]

  Ms Keeble
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is not aware of any "labour boards" on the Isle of Wight. There are a number of bodies responsible for local economic and work force development activities on the Isle of Wight, but none has national appointment processes, all being locally developed in response to the local need.

  London Underground
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to sign documents for the public private partnership with London Underground. [41292]

  Mr. Jamieson
  If a final decision is taken to proceed, PPP contracts for the modernisation of London Underground will be signed by London Underground, not the Secretary of State.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of changes to the contracts to operate train lines under the proposed PPP scheme since 7 February; [42813]

  (2) who is responsible for determining (a) whether there have been material changes in the contracts to operate train lines under the proposed PPP scheme since 7 February and (b) whether material changes to the contracts to operate trains under the proposed PPP scheme for the London Underground require a re-evaluation of the value for money survey carried out by (i) London Underground and (ii) Ernst and Young; [42815]

  (3) under what circumstances changes to the contract to operate trains under the proposed PPP scheme for the London Underground will require a re-evaluation of the value for money survey carried out by (a) London Underground and (b) Ernst and Young. [42814]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The proposed PPP contracts are for the modernisation of the Underground's infrastructure. London Underground will continue to operate the entire tube network, including trains.

  London Underground is responsible for the contracts. London Underground has confirmed that it intends to take a final decision, including in relation to value for money, following completion of consultation with the Mayor and Transport for London.

  I and my officials have been kept informed throughout development of the contracts. In taking any decisions that fall to me in my capacity as Secretary of State I will take into account all the relevant factors. I will, in particular,
  1206W
  consider whether any changes to the contracts will affect my three key principles: that there is no privatisation, that safety is not compromised and that the contracts offer value for money.

  10-Year Plan
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the required investment in the railway network for(a) safety and (b) repairs over the life of the Government's 10-year plan. [41304]

  Mr. Spellar
  All of the rail investment contained in the 10-year plan and SRA strategic plan contributes in some way to achieving our objectives of a better, safer and more reliable railway. It is not possible to provide a specific estimate for these categories.

  National Rail Academy
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what requirement will be placed on(a) the train operating companies and (b) the successor company to Railtrack to employ people with qualifications from the National Rail Academy. [42810]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The issue of qualifications will in part be addressed through the 'Framework for Skills' 18-Point Action Plan. It is likely that the National Rail Academy will have a key role to play in relation to standards and qualifications. However, its precise role and the relationship with the Rail Industry Training Council, the existing National Training Organisation and the prospective Sector Skills Council have yet to be determined.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when the proposed National Rail Academy will be brought into operation; [42808]

  (2) how much money has been allocated for (a) the development of and (b) the operation of a National Rail Academy; and if this money forms part of the funding proposed under the Ten Year Plan. [42807]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The Government have made available £33.5 billion to improve the railways of which £500,000 is being allocated by the Strategic Rail Authority to develop a number of training initiatives during this year. There is currently no fixed establishment date for the National Rail Academy and it is likely that it will evolve progressively from a number of current initiatives.

  Rail Industry (Skills)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the skills shortage in the rail industry in terms of(a) numbers of people and (b) skill areas. [42809]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The progress report on the delivery of the Framework for Skills for the Rail Industry provides at Annexe 4 an analysis of the occupations in which there are skill shortages. The report is available on the Department for Education and Skills website—www.dfes.gov.uk/railindustry.

  Special Purpose Vehicles
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he has issued to the SRA in respect of the creation of special purpose vehicles for rail projects; and if he will place it in the Library. [42838]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: On 29 June 2001 I issued draft Directions and Guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA). These would direct the SRA to consider the use of Special Purpose Vehicles to undertake rail infrastructure works (section 8.2) and require the SRA to detail in its strategy how and by when such projects will be introduced (section 7.4). A copy was placed in the House Library at the time of their publication.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Video and Data Network
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what measures he is taking to improve remote access to PDVN for hon. Members' constituency staff; and what recent assessment he has made of the reliability of access to the network. [43127]

  Michael Fabricant
  I fully recognise the need to improve the reliability of remote access services for hon. Members' constituency staff. As a short-term measure, the Parliamentary Communications Directorate has tested an upgrade to the existing remote access software (Citrix) and plans to make it available shortly to all hon. Members.

  Statutory instrument

  Power transferred

  2000–01

  S.I. 2000/1563

  The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers, etc.) Order 2000

  S.I. 2000/3251

  The Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities)(Adaptation of Functions etc.)(No. 2) Order 2000

  S.I. 2000/3253

  The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers, etc.)(No. 2) Order 2000

  S.I. 2001/954

  The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers, etc.) Order 2001

  2001–02

  S.I. 2001/3504

  The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers, etc.)(No. 2) Order 2001

  Scotland Act
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to amend the Scotland Act 1998. [41418]

  Mrs. Liddell
  At present, I have no plans to amend the Scotland Act.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last discussed the future of the Scotland Act 1998 with the Scottish Executive. [41417]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I discuss a range of issues with the First Minister at our regular meetings.

  A76
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations she has received on 1208W
  It is expected that this upgrade will improve the performance of the remote access service, within the limitations of the Citrix product.

  The question of remote access for constituency staff is a matter for the President of the Council and is being pursued in the context of the changes to hon. Members' allowances which were agreed by the House on 5 July 2001. I understand that the House is in the final stages of placing a contract to provide Members with improved access to the Internet and to the Parliamentary Data and Video Network (PDVN) via a commercial Internet Service Provider (ISP). Once the necessary administrative, financial and technical elements are in place, Members' constituency offices will be able to connect directly to the PDVN using a Virtual Private Network (VPN), which will allow broadband access (such as ADSL where available) as well as ISDN and dial-up services. It is hoped that a pilot of the new service will take place in July 2002, and I am optimistic that this long-term solution will provide considerable benefits for hon. Members and their staff.

SCOTLAND

  Devolution
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list powers transferred by her Department to the Scottish Executive under provisions of the Scotland Act in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [39330]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 28 February 2002]: Powers transferred to the Scottish Executive between the specified dates are set out in the following statutory instruments:

  vehicle speed limits on the A76 trunk road for (a) passenger cars and (b) heavy goods vehicles. [41414]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have received no representations on this matter.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on Government policy on the future for nuclear power stations in Scotland. [41593]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The future role of all forms of power will be considered in the Energy White Paper which was referred to by the Prime Minister in his foreword to the Cabinet Office Energy Review publication.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations she has had with representatives of the Scottish Executive regarding a public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreaks in Scotland. [41470]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced two independent inquiries into the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001. The "Lessons Learned" inquiry has been asked to make recommendations on the handling of any future major animal disease outbreak. The Royal Society has been asked to investigate the transmission, prevention and control of epidemic outbreaks of infectious disease in livestock, and to make recommendations. The "Lessons Learned" inquiry and the Royal Society inquiry both extend to Scotland, and the Scottish Executive has presented views to both inquiries. The inquiries will report to Ministers in the Scottish Executive as well as to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations she has had with Scottish Executive Ministers and European Union officials on a public inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreaks in Scotland. [41416]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger).

  The European Commission will be kept in touch with the progress of these inquiries.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on the payment of relocation expenses to staff in his Department. [41018]

  Students from England aged 18 accepted for entry to full-time undergraduate courses in the UK by previous educational institution

  Academic year of entry to higher education

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Maintained schools

  17-year-olds in previous year studying in maintained schools1

  131,700

  132,500

  137,100

  18-year-olds accepted for entry from maintained schools2,3

  64,100

  64,900

  68,200

  Percentage proceeding to HE from maintained schools

  49

  49

  50

  Independent schools

  17-year-olds in previous year studying in independent schools1

  36,000

  35,000

  35,200

  18-year-olds accepted for entry from independent schools2

  19,100

  18,300

  18,800

  Percentage proceeding to HE from independent schools

  53

  52

  53

  FE colleges

  17-year-olds in previous year studying in FE colleges1

  183,700

  183,100

  184,900

  18-year-olds accepted for entry from FE colleges2

  37,700

  38,100

  40,800

  Percentage proceeding to HE from FE colleges

  21

  21

  22

  1 Age as at August 31

  2 Age as at September 30

  3 Including city technology colleges and sixth form centres

  Examination Boards
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will replace the boards responsible for setting examinations in schools by a single board. [40730]
  1210W
  Mr. Leslie
  Cabinet Office policy is to reimburse approved costs that are necessarily and unavoidably incurred as a result of relocation. Levels of reimbursement are agreed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the availability of funding in the management unit to which an individual is attached.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Higher Education
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress the Government have made towards their target of 50 per cent. of young people entering higher education. [40728]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are making excellent progress towards meeting our ambitious but realistic target of participation in HE. The target is informed by our analysis of labour market needs over the next decade and by our determination to ensure opportunity for all throughout the education system.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the proportion of students from secondary modern schools who went on to higher education in each of the last three years. [40740]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on the number of pupils from secondary modern schools who go on to HE is not held centrally.

  The available information, showing the previous type of educational institution of students accepted for entry to full-time undergraduate courses, is shown in the table. However, not all students who enter HE do so directly after they have left full-time education at 18; some spend a period in employment before returning to study, and others take a gap year to broaden their experience. Around a third of young people enter full-time higher education by the age of 20, including those who enter at ages 18, 19, and 20.

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have no plans to replace the current structure in England with a single board.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the operation of exam boards. [40736]
  1211W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Millions of examination papers are taken by students in England and Wales each year. It is a massive and complex task to set and manage this number of exams—and a task that the awarding bodies generally perform to a high standard.

  Engineering
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to promote engineering as a career; and if she will make a statement. [40731]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government recognise the importance of engineering to the success of our economy.

  To this end we have just launched a new science and engineering ambassadors programme as part of Science Year.

  In addition, we have recently announced a new campaign to promote modern apprenticeships to young people and employers. Currently the engineering manufacturing sector has the largest number of young people undertaking advanced modern apprenticeship training.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the results of the recent inspections of further education colleges. [40732]

  Margaret Hodge
  Of the 64 college inspections carried out to date under the new regime, results have been published for 29 colleges. It is early days and conclusions so far are tentative. There have been some good results but there is still some way to go to achieve consistent quality.

  Teachers' Pay
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received from teaching unions about devolving teachers' pay and conditions to the National Assembly for Wales. [40733]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers are expected to progress up the post-threshold pay spine this academic year. [40748]

  Mr. Timms
  Progress on the upper pay scale is by performance points awarded by individual schools. Teachers on point one of the upper pay scale since September 2000 become eligible to move to point two from September 2002. The number moving to point two will be determined by the number of performance points schools decide to award.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent research she has commissioned into the effect of performance-related pay on teachers' morale. [40750]
  1212W
  Mr. Timms
  The Department's evaluation of the first round of performance threshold assessment included a MORI survey of teachers in a sample of schools. The results were summarised in the written evidence submitted by the Department to the School Teachers' Review Body in September. This is available on the DFES website: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/Teachers_Pay_Evidence_STRB_2001 and http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/Teachers_Pay_STRB_Supplementary_Evidence.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will issue guidance to schools on the advancement of teachers on the upper pay scale. [40749]

  Mr. Timms
  Progression on the upper pay scale is by performance points awarded by individual schools. Guidance on awarding such points was included in the Department's guidance on teachers' pay and conditions sent to all schools in September.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent meetings she has had with the National Association of Head Teachers to discuss performance-related pay. [40737]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given earlier today to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on 14 March 2002,Official Report, column 1003.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the cost in 2002–03 of continued funding of performance-related pay for teachers in the county of Leicestershire; and if she will make a statement. [40739]

  Mr. Timms
  The cost of threshold pay will depend on the number of teachers in Leicestershire assessed as meeting the threshold standards, including applicants currently being assessed. The cost of performance pay points will depend on the number of points Leicestershire schools decide to award.

  Further Education
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the system of maintenance support available for young people in further education. [40734]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are breaking down the financial barriers which prevent young people from succeeding in further education in a number of ways. We are piloting education maintenance allowances for young people in 56 local authority areas. We have increased the existing learner support funds from £6 million in 1997 to £51 million in 2001–02. And we are introducing the Connexions Card which will make a range of discounts and rewards available to young people who participate in learning.

  Foreign Languages
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what preparations are under way to develop foreign language teaching in primary schools. [40738]
  1213W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Languages National Steering Group, chaired by my ministerial colleague Baroness Ashton, is developing a national strategy for languages which we plan to publish in the autumn. Our recently published pamphlet, "Language Learning", sets out our aspirations for language learning and teaching and invites comments from key stakeholders. One of those aspirations is to widen the opportunities for language learning in the primary sector.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to ensure that learning and skills councils co-ordinate their activities with those of the regional development agencies. [40741]

  John Healey
  The Learning and Skills Act 2000 requires that each of the 47 local learning and skills councils (LSCs) must, in preparing a plan for each financial year, have regard to the strategy of and consult any relevant regional development agency. The national council must consult any relevant regional development agency on whether such plans should be approved; and both national and local councils include a RDA nominee.

  Local LSCs must have regard to RDA regional economic strategies and include in their plans a statement setting out how their learning and skills responsibilities will contribute to economic regeneration activities.

  The Secretary of State, in her 2002–03 grant letter to the LSC, also asked that the council work closely with key partners in each region, including Government offices and RDAs, to help produce frameworks for regional employment and skills action. These frameworks will ensure a coherent approach to employment, skills and economic development.

  Schools Funding
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received on the funding of post-16 pupils in 11 to 18 schools in Derbyshire. [40742]

  Mr. Timms
  Derbyshire county council and a number of the schools which it maintains have made representations to the Department on this subject. A letter issued by the Department on 18 February 2002 to all local education authorities set out guidance on the treatment of allocations from the Learning and Skills Council for sixth forms in schools, so as to ensure a minimum gain for schools with allocations above their real-terms guarantee level.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assistance she is giving to local education authorities experiencing difficulties in recruiting teachers. [40743]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2001–02 we established a new recruitment and retention fund of £33 million targeted on local education authorities, to pass to schools in areas of greatest difficulty. The feedback we have received has been positive and we have made a further £44 million available in 2002–03. In addition, the Teacher Training 1214W
  Agency fund recruitment strategy managers in 97 LEAs to help provide a co-ordinated local approach to vacancy filling.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students have enrolled for teacher training in the last three years; and how many teacher trained graduates remained in the profession for a year or more in each of the last three years. [40744]

  Mr. Timms
  The numbers of students enroling on initial teacher training courses in England in the last three years were as follows:

  Number

  1999–2000

  25,967

  2000–01

  27,715

  2001–02

  29,045

  Notes:

  1. Includes universities and other higher education institutions, school-centred initial teacher training and the Open University. Does not include trainees employed in schools under the graduate and registered teacher programmes.

  2. Recruitment figures include forecast registrations ITT providers expect later in the academic year.

  3. 2001–02 recruitment figures exclude the 110 entrants on the fast-track teaching route, attending ITT as part of the programme.

  4. Recruitment figures for 2001–02 are provisional and are subject to change.

  Source:

  Teacher Training Agency initial teacher training trainee numbers census

  Physical Education
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made to ensure that pupils receive a minimum two hours physical education per week within the curriculum. [40745]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The White Paper: "Schools: achieving success" sets out our commitment to physical education and school sport. We have pledged that all children will be entitled to two hours of high quality PE and school sport a week, within and beyond the curriculum.

  To help deliver this, we have a School Sport Co-ordinator programme—494 co-ordinators are already in place and are working to increase the quality and quantity of after school sport and inter-school competition and to enhance links between local schools and their communities.

  £130 million has been committed to rebuild primary school sport and arts facilities through the Space for Sports and Arts programme. A further £541 million from the New Opportunities Fund will be used to improve both primary and secondary schools sports facilities in every local education authority.

  We are working closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and other partners, to expand the current programmes to assist schools in meeting the PE and school sport entitlement.

  Science Students
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to encourage(a) boys and (b) girls to study science. [40746]
  1215W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The National Curriculum is gender-free, requiring equality of opportunity for girls and boys between the ages of five and 16. Pupils study an equal balance of biology, physics and chemistry together with aspects of earth science and astronomy. Results in primary science are excellent; in 2001, 87 per cent. of pupils achieved level 4, the standard expected for their age, or above, a 25 per cent. increase since 1996. Building on the achievements at primary level, we are piloting a science strategy designed to raise standards for all 11 to 14-year-olds and a national programme will be introduced in all schools in September. In recognition of its importance in preparing young people for adult and working life, we are proposing the retention of science as a core subject for 14 to 16-year-olds in our consultation document: "14–19 extending opportunities, raising standards".

  In January, we launched the science and engineering ambassadors scheme as part of Science Year. One of its main purposes is to encourage both boys and girls to continue their study of science beyond the age of 16.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will introduce a replacement scheme for individual learners. [40747]

  John Healey
  There will be a replacement ILA-style scheme building on the strengths of the ILA and taking into account the findings of the current stakeholder consultation exercise which are due in early April. We will announce our plans in due course.

  Research
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on her plans for funding research in universities; and if she will make a statement. [40751]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department's policy is to strengthen research excellence and support world-class research. The Higher Education Funding Council for England implements this policy by providing funding selectively to higher education institutions, taking into account the quality of their research in each subject as measured by the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). The purpose of the RAE is to distribute funding, not to determine the amount of funding that should be made available. However, in the light of the improvement in quality shown in the 2001 RAE, my Department has made available an extra £30 million in 2002–03 to allow the Higher Education Funding Council for England better to support high quality research in higher education. Future research funding is being considered as part of the current spending review.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will extend the area cost adjustment element of the education SSA to Wiltshire. [40752]

  Mr. Timms
  We are currently working up proposals for a reformed system of school and LEA funding for introduction in 2003–04. We are taking a fresh and objective look at what provision is needed for area costs in education and have no presumptions that current 1216W
  funding in any particular area is too high or indeed too low. We expect to consult on proposals for the new system in the summer, after the spending review is complete.

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many unqualified adults are working as classroom assistants in England; and if she will make a statement. [40753]

  Mr. Timms
  There were 95,815 full-time equivalent teaching assistants in England in January 2001. No data are held centrally on their qualifications.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff left the service of her Department and its agencies in the year ended 31 March 2001; how many left before attaining the formal retirement age of 60 years; and in respect of how many her Department and its agencies assumed responsibilities for making payments until retirement age. [37554]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  For information on staff that have left the Department during the year ended 31 March 2001, and on how many left before the age of 60, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office today. This Department has assumed responsibility for making payments until retirement age for 143 staff who left the DfEE and its agencies in the year ended 31 March 2001.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if she will list the official visits within the UK outside London made by each Minister in her Department in 2001, giving for each(a) the origin and destination and (b) the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in her Department on choice of mode of travel for official visits; [38180]

  (2) if she will list the official visits to (a) Paris and (b) Brussels made by each Minister in her Department in 2001 and the mode of travel used; and what guidance is provided to Ministers in her Department on the choice of mode of travel for such visits. [38144]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 421W.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will set out for each Civil Service grade within her(a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies the (i) total number of staff employed, (ii) number aged (A) 16–25, (B) 26–35, (C) 36–45, (D) 46–60 and (E) over the age of 60 years, (iii) number of registered disabled and (iv) number of ethnic minorities. [39173]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office.

  Non-Governmental Organisations
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list non-Governmental organisations operating in the south-west region that receive public funds from her Department; and what amount of annual funding they received in the most recent year for which figures are available. [39189]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Autism
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many autistic pupils there were in each year since 1997 in(a) South Tyneside, (b) the north-east and (c) the UK; [39619]

  (2) how many schools there are in (a) South Tyneside, (b) the north-east and (c) the UK which specialise in the treatment of autism; and what plans there are to increase this number. [39620]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not available.

  Educational Attainment
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the educational attainment of schoolchildren in(a) current and former coalfield areas and (b) England; and what improvement there has been since 1997. [41796]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In January 2001, we jointly commissioned research with the Coalfield Communities Campaign that looked into patterns of educational achievement in the coalfields. Former and current coalfield areas are benefiting from the literacy and numeracy strategies at primary level.

  Percentage attainment indicators for boys

  England

  Coalfields

  Key stage 1

  1998

  2000

  1998

  2000

  Level 2+ reading (comprehension test)

  75

  77

  73

  79

  Level 2+ maths

  83

  89

  82

  88

  The same trend applied to girls. Beyond Key Stage 1, performance in coalfield areas did improve but remained below the national average. The full research report is available on the Department's internet site www.dfes.gov.uk (DFES research report 314) and in the House of Commons Library.

  We recognise that more still needs to be done which is why we published the Schools White Paper—Schools: Achieving Success. It is a significant package for the reform of secondary education and also sets out our vision for education for the years ahead. The full consultation paper is available on the Department's internet site.

  Post-16 Education
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the staying on rate post-16 education is in(a) coalfield areas and (b) England. [41797]
  1218W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Reliable data on the percentage of students continuing in post-compulsory education at age 16 for coalfield areas cannot be produced at present. Participation rates by LEA and by local LSC area for 16 and 17-year-olds are published in Statistical Bulletin 11/00: Participation in education and training by young people aged 16 and 17 in each local area and region, England, 1995–96 to 1999–00.

  The percentage of 16-year-olds participating in full-time and part-time education in England was 78.5 per cent. (provisional) in 2000–01.

  Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions she has had with trade unions about(a) pay and conditions and (b) training of (i) teaching and classroom assistants and (ii) nursery nurses. [42089]

  Mr. Timms
  Last December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met a representative from the GMB and school support staff including teaching assistants and nursery nurses to hear their views about the pay and conditions of service of school support staff.

  Departmental officials are currently discussing in a working party with representatives of teachers, employers and support staff, a range of options for developing the role, career structure and training of support staff in schools.

  Academic Qualifications
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of children left school with no academic qualifications in(a) coalfield areas and (b) England in each of the last 10 years. [41800]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The proportion of 15-year-olds that achieved no GCSE or GNVQ equivalent passes by 2000–01 was 5.5 per cent. for England as a whole. This information is not available for coalfield areas.

  Drug Education
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what requirements there are for drug education and awareness in(a) schools, (b) colleges and (c) universities. [42552]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Drug education in maintained schools is a statutory part of the National Curriculum. DfES Circular 4/95 sets out the statutory position on drug education in schools and was supplemented by the guidance "Protecting Young People" (1998) which gives detailed advice on how to deliver drug education effectively.

  There are no requirements for drug education and awareness work to take place in colleges and universities. However the universities' own representative body, Universities UK, has produced guidelines on drug and alcohol policies for higher education institutions.

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, columns 770–72W, if she will list

  1219W
  Standards Fund grants which are not allocated to LEAs on a formula basis; what additional education funding is not allocated through (a) the Standards Fund and (b) special grants; and which additional educational funding schools are expected to apply for. [43351]

  Mr. Timms
  All Standards Fund grants are allocated to local education authorities on a formula basis, except for grants supporting grammar school/non-selective school partnerships and the training school initiative, which are based on individual agreements between the Department and the partnership or school. The grants funding Welcome Back bonuses and Golden Hellos for teachers require applications from schools but are allocated by a formula on receipt of the application. Schools may also apply to become part of the Specialist Schools programme, funded through the Standards Fund, and if successful the resulting additional funding is allocated by a formula.

  The following initiatives involve additional funding allocated by formula to local education authorities outside the Standards Fund or Special Grant mechanisms:

  Nursery education grant;

  Special educational needs co-ordinators (early years);

  Early years training;

  Child care grant;

  Neighbourhood nursery initiative (primarily a child care grant);

  Grant maintained school transitional grant for insurance; and

  Capital funding for voluntary aided schools.

  The last two initiatives listed will require applications from schools, with funding allocated by formula on receipt of the application. The Teachers' Threshold Grant and Teachers' Performance Pay Progression Grant, paid via Special Grants, are also allocated in this way.

  Specialist Teachers
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on special needs teaching in Somerset, with special reference to the number of specialist teachers available. [40735]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Office for Standards in Education inspections of the Local Education Authority and schools indicate that overall the Local Education Authority's strategy for special educational needs is sound. There is a higher than average proportion of good provision for special educational needs pupils in mainstream schools. The number of statements maintained by the Local Education Authority has been declining each year since 1996 and the number of pupils in special schools has decreased to 1 per cent. The national average is 1.3 per cent.

  Schools (Repairs)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many of the schools requiring substantial repairs are expected to have had 1220W
  these repairs completed by 1 April; and what financial resources will be needed to complete such repairs between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2004. [43023]

  John Healey
  In 1996–97, when this Government came to office, capital spending on school buildings was £683 million. This has risen to £2.2 billion for 2001–02, and will rise further to an annual rate of £3.5 billion by 2003–04. Between April 2002 and April 2004, over £6.4 billion will be available for investment in school buildings. Local education authorities and schools can use this greatly increased funding to address the backlog of repairs that had built up over years of under funding by the previous Administration. They can also start to modernise the schools estate to meet the teaching and learning needs of the 21st century.

  The Department has an investment strategy target of having addressed the most urgent repairs in 7,000 schools by 2004. Investment decisions are best made at the local level, and the bulk of the funding we provide is allocated to local education authorities and to schools by formula to enable them to address the priority needs of their school buildings. The funding that is available from 2001–02 until 2003–04 includes £1.25 billion of NDS devolved formula capital which goes directly to all maintained schools in England to enable them to invest in their buildings. To reduce the bureaucratic burden, we are not at present requesting details of this investment, but the funding we are making available will enable this target to be met.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on how many of the schools requiring rebuilding or re-modelling work will have(a) commenced and (b) been completed by 1 April; and what financial resources will be needed to complete this work between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2004. [43022]

  John Healey
  In 1996–97, when this Government came to office, capital spending on school buildings was £683 million. This has risen to £2.2 billion for 2001–02, and will rise further to an annual rate of £3.5 billion by 2003–04. Between April 2002 and April 2004, over £6.4 billion will be available for investment in school buildings. Local education authorities and schools are able to use this greatly increased funding to address the backlog of repairs that had built up over years of under-funding by the previous Administration. They can also start to modernise the schools estate to meet the teaching and learning needs of the 21st century.

  The Department has an investment strategy target of having replacement or refurbishment completed or under way in 650 schools by 2004. Investment decisions are best made at the local level, and the bulk of the funding we provide is allocated to local education authorities and to schools by formula to enable them to address the priority needs of their school buildings. To reduce the bureaucratic burden, we are not at present requesting details of this investment, but the funding we are making available will enable this target to be met.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been released in each of the past 10 years as a result of miscarriages of justice who have had their original convictions quashed(a) on appeal and (b) otherwise. [38364]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: The information requested is not readily available. However, the table sets out the outcome of appeals heard by the full Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in each of the last 10 years:

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Number of re-trials ordered

  1992

  299

  370

  12

  1993

  402

  524

  20

  1994

  351

  577

  51

  1995

  253

  521

  52

  1996

  250

  469

  53

  19971

  236

  367

  33

  1998

  290

  403

  73

  1999

  171

  380

  70

  2000

  150

  333

  72

  2001

  135

  313

  n/a

  1 From 1997, figures relate to applications rather than appellants.

  It is not possible to tell from these figures exactly how many prisoners were released from prison in each of the last 10 years as a result of their convictions being quashed. This is because not all of those who have successfully appealed against conviction will be in custody at the time their convictions are overturned; the outcome of the re-trials ordered is not available; and the table does not take any account of summary convictions quashed by the Crown court, or of convictions quashed by the House of Lords (figures for which are not available). In addition, the table's figures for appeal outcomes from 1997 onward are for the number of applications heard (each of which could have involved more than one appellant). As to (b), it is only appellate courts which have the power to quash a conviction.

  Air Conditioning
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which consultant was used to advise on the installation of air conditioning during the recent refurbishment of 50 Queen Anne's Gate; [41160]

  (2) what measures were taken to ensure that the consultant advising on the installation of air conditioning during the recent refurbishment of 50 Queen Anne's Gate was aware of the Government's policy on the use of hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants in air-conditioning; and if he will make a statement on the measures taken by the consultant to source practical and safe alternatives to hydrofluorocarbon-based air-conditioning; [41161]
  1222W
  (3) whether an installer capable of installing not-in-kind air conditioning was invited to quote for the recent refurbishment contract for 50 Queen Anne's Gate. [41159]

  Angela Eagle
  The air conditioning central chiller plant in 50 Queen Anne's Gate was replaced last year, because the old plant contained Chlorofluorocarbons, which were banned from 31 December 2000. This project did not form part of a larger refurbishment.

  The procurement of the replacement chillers was handled using the standard procurement procedures for works contracts below the value of £3.6 million. Consultant engineers, Torpy Management (now known as Halcrow) and the Facilities Management Contractors, Johnson Controls, were asked to select five firms established in this particular field to tender. Another firm chaired by the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Mr. Gummer) offering an innovative environmentally friendly solution approached our consultants. This firm was seriously considered, but was not invited to tender, because our consultants considered that the alternative offered would have increased the cost and project risk unacceptably. The building work required in an occupied building would have been more extensive. In making this decision, the consultants took advice from the then Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (now part of the Office of Government Commerce) and experts within their own organisation.

  The consultants were aware of the Home Office's Greening Operations Policy, which advised that environmentally friendly alternatives to Hydrofluorocarbons should be used where feasible. It was their view that a safe, technically feasible and cost-effective environmentally preferable solution did not exist in this particular case, taking into account that the building is in need of a major overall refurbishment and the Department's plans to relocate to 2 Marsham Street in three to four years' time. However, the firms that were asked to tender were invited to offer environmentally innovative solutions—none did so and the contract was awarded in October 2000 to a firm using a standard environmentally compliant refrigerant containing Hydrofluorocarbons.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to hear from his Advisory Committee in relation to proposals to reclassify cannabis as a Class C drug; and if he will make a statement. [40198]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have now received the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which I am currently considering.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government
  1223W
  have to include the Armenian massacres by the Ottoman Empire in 1915 in the remembrance commemorated by National Holocaust Memorial Day. [39951]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government recognise the strength of feeling in the Armenian community about the massacres of 1915–16. It was an appalling episode in twentieth century history, condemned by the British Government of the day and now.

  The Government continue to extend its sympathies to the descendants of the victims, along with an assurance that the massacres will never be forgotten.

  The Government believe that Holocaust Memorial Day should focus on learning the lessons of the Holocaust and other more recent atrocities that raise similar issues.

  A particular focus on events around the period 1939–45 and thereafter should not be seen as failing to acknowledge, sympathise with and respect the deep concerns about earlier events like the massacre of Armenians in 1915–16.

  Indeed, the particular focus of Holocaust Memorial Day does not prevent recollection by the Armenian community in the United Kingdom of the appalling events of 1915–16. Others may also seek to highlight other atrocities.

  UK Detention Services
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when contracts with UK Detention Services Ltd. will be signed for new prisons at(a) Ashford and (b) Peterborough. [40060]

  Beverley Hughes
  The contracts for the prisons at Ashford and Peterborough are due to be signed at the end of March 2002 and the middle of April 2002 respectively.

  Prisons
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the staffing levels are for each category of staff at HMP Rye Hill; what the prisoner population is at HMP Rye Hill; and what plans there are to deal with overcrowding at HMP Rye Hill. [40063]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of certificated staff at Rye Hill prison is 164 and that of support staff including sub-contractors is 78. As at 28 February 2002 the prison held 618 prisoners. The certified normal accommodation is 600. The contractually approved operational capacity is 660.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the staffing levels are for each category of staff at HMP Dovegate; what the prisoner population is; when HMP Dovegate is expected to reach full capacity; what plans there are to deal with overcrowding; what research is being commissioned by the contractor into the outcomes at HMP Dovegate; which organisation is carrying out the research; and if he will make a statement. [40062]

  Beverley Hughes
  The staffing levels at Dovegate prison are shown in the table.
  1224W

  Main prison

  Therapeutic community

  Managerial

  91

  25

  Prisoner custody officer

  150

  61

  Support

  83

  9

  Total

  324

  95

  The main prison's population was 594 on 28 February 2002. The certified normal capacity is 600. Discussions on increasing this capacity within the contractual limits for overcrowding are under way. There are currently 81 participants in the therapeutic community and it is planned to reach the operational capacity of 200 by July 2002.

  The contractor is in the process of letting a six-year research contract to Surrey university during which three topics in respect of the therapeutic community will be studied: the mechanism of individual change in relation to the therapeutic process, the behaviour of residents when they return to the prison system and the reconviction and re-offending rates of residents when they are released into the general community.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the staffing levels are for each category of staff at HMP Blakenhurst; how staffing levels have changed since the Prison Service assumed management of the prison; what changes to the regime have occurred since the Prison Service assumed management of the prison; and if he will make a statement. [40065]

  Beverley Hughes
  The current staffing levels at Blakenhurst prison are 14 managers, 208 operational grades, 64 other directly employed staff and 24 catering and educational staff, a total of 310. This is comparable to the planned complement of approximately 322 employees (including contracted out personnel) of the former contractor, United Kingdom Detention Services (UKDS) before the change in management.

  Major changes in regime under Prison Service management include: a revision of the prison's daily visits timetable and the introduction of a booked visits scheme; the introduction of a Personal Officer Scheme; the revision of the prison's incentives and earned privileges scheme and of the anti-bullying strategy; the refocusing of education on the acquisition of basic skills and employment skills; the introduction of a new pre-release course addressing resettlement issues; an increase in domestic work for prisoners; the redevelopment of prison workshops with the opening in March of two new workshops providing work for 60 prisoners; and the introduction of an industrial cleaning course for 15 prisoners.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the staffing levels were for each category of staff at HMP Doncaster immediately prior to the commencement of the latest contract with Premier Custodial Group Ltd; what the staffing levels are for each category of staff at HMP Doncaster; and what the prisoner population is at HMP Doncaster. [40064]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of staff at Doncaster prison immediately before, and after, the new contract is shown in the table.
  1225W

  Old contract

  New contract

  Managerial

  58

  67

  Prisoner custody officer

  320

  273

  Support

  256

  279

  Total

  634

  619

  The population at Doncaster as at 1 March 2002 was 1,003.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the present staffing levels are for each category of staff at HMP Wandsworth; and what vacancies exist in each category. [40513]

  Beverley Hughes
  The figures are given in the table.

  Grade category

  Staff in post on 28 February 2002

  Vacancies on 28 February 2002

  Accountant

  1

  —

  Administrative

  59

  6

  Chaplaincy

  3.5

  1

  Healthcare

  33.5

  3.5

  Industrial

  25.5

  —

  Non industrial

  28

  6

  Operational support grade

  103

  —

  Psychology

  8

  1

  Officer grades

  391.5

  31.5

  Governor grades

  12

  —

  Grand Total

  666

  49

  Offenders (Electronic Monitoring)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders are being electronically monitored in the Greater London area. [40512]

  Beverley Hughes
  On 28 February 2002, a total of 528 persons were being electronically monitored in the Greater London area.

  Design Champion
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the role is of the Design Champion in his Department. [40528]

  Angela Eagle
  I am the Ministerial Design Champion for the Home Office. I will review the Department's capital works programme, the design quality aspects of that programme in relation to the Government's wider objectives, and in particular the prevention of crime. I aim to sponsor at least two projects within the Department's remit, and to oversee a departmental action plan to improve design quality across the Department and sponsored bodies. It is important to encourage a commitment to better public building and to ensure that high-quality design is part of an efficient and effective procurement process.

  Sex Offenders
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people are on the Sex Offenders Register in each constituency in Essex, broken down by type of offence; [39497]
  1226W
  (2) how many people are on the Sex Offenders Register in Essex, broken down by (a) gender, (b) ethnic group, (c) original nationality at birth and (d) age, broken down by those aged (i) below 40, (ii) 40 to 59 and (iii) 60 years and above. [39495]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Sex Offenders Act 1997 requires offenders cautioned for, convicted of, or found not guilty by reason of insanity of an offence specified in Schedule One to the Act to provide certain details to the police. There is, however, no "register" of sex offenders, as such; nor are sex offenders subject to the requirements of the Act separately identified as such in criminal statistics.

  Until recently, data on the number of sex offenders subject to the requirements of the Act were collated biannually on a national basis from the police national computer. However, this arrangement has been overtaken following guidance issued by the Home Office in respect of the provisions in section 67 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The guidance requires information about the number of sex offenders subject to the Act's requirements in each police area to be published on an annual basis starting in 2002 and local systems are being put in place to deliver this. Until these systems are in place information on numbers of sex offenders subject to the Act's requirements could be obtained only by a specific exercise by the particular police force concerned. We have no plans to require publication by constituency or to break down published figures further.

  Prison Education
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prison workers receive an environmental allowance; whether prison education workers receive such an allowance; whether the money paid to those contracted to deliver prison education includes an element to pay environmental allowances; and if he will review these prison education contracts to ensure that the conditions under which prison education lecturers operate are taken into account. [40654]

  Beverley Hughes
  Prison environmental allowances are paid only to nursing and pharmacy grades employed under national health service Whitley terms and conditions. No other directly employed Prison Service staff receive an environmental allowance. Those contracted through a third party to deliver education do not qualify for an environmental allowance from the Prison Service. The composition of pay rates for staff employed by third party contractors is a matter for the contractor. What the Prison Service is buying is the provision of a range of education services to a particular standard and volume.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms exist for prison education workers to appeal against the decision of prison governors to exclude them on the grounds of a breach of prison rules and regulations; and what plans the Government and Prison Service have concerning such mechanisms. [40413]

  Beverley Hughes
  Prison governors have a statutory right to exclude any representative of the education contractor from their establishment on the grounds of maintaining good order and discipline or security. The
  1227W
  contractor is required to co-operate with any investigation relating to security and to make any staff available to be interviewed as part of such an investigation. Education workers have the right to representation either by the contractor or by a third party acceptable to both the contractor and establishment.

  Police Service
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on maternity leave, maternity support leave, parental leave and adoption leave in the Police Service. [44041]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has approved an agreement reached in the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) granting improved maternity leave to policewomen in England and Wales. The PNB Agreement also creates new rights for police officers to maternity support leave, adoption leave and to time off to care for dependants. The full details of the agreement are set out in Home Office Circular hoc 12–2002 that has been placed in the Library.

  The changes include:
  enabling policewomen to take split periods of maternity leave before and after childbirth;
  giving police officers with responsibility for a child an entitlement to 13 weeks leave in respect of each child up to the age of five, with an entitlement to buy back, for pension purposes, reckonable service for any period taken as parental leave;
  replacing the current two day paternity leave provision with an entitlement to five days paid maternity support leave for the child's father or partner or nominated carer of the expectant mother;
  giving police officers five days adoption leave at or around the time of adoption; and
  giving police officers an entitlement to paid leave, normally one or two days, to cope with short-term difficulties.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary approved the PNB Agreement in order to give police officers the same rights enjoyed by other workers under employment rights legislation.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requirements he sets for the conspicuity of speed cameras. [42510]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  New visibility rules for those areas participating in the safety camera netting off scheme were announced on 3 December 2001. These state that fixed site camera housings should be clearly signed and made visible by being painted or marked in yellow. Mobile enforcement units should also be clearly marked and visible to drivers. Areas currently outside the netting off scheme would need to comply with all the visibility requirements as a condition of joining.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many press releases were issued by his Department(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [40035]
  1228W
  Angela Eagle
  The number of press releases issued by the Department was:

  19971

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Home Office

  271

  512

  450

  422

  336

  Prison service

  672

  75

  78

  93

  91

  Probation inspectorate

  2

  3

  —

  11

  14

  Prisons inspectorate

  —

  7

  39

  38

  59

  Police inspectorate

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Fire inspectorate

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1 May to 31 December 1997

  2 Figure is for the full year.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance he gives to the funeral costs of asylum seekers; and how those funeral costs are met. [40565]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office does not give any assistance towards meeting the funeral costs of asylum seekers.

TREASURY

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the net saving in public expenditure that will be made in 2001–02 due to the public sector's reduced liability for national insurance contributions following the rebates associated with the climate change levy. [41828]

  Mr. Boateng
  The levy package is expected to lead to little change to the overall public finances in 2001–02. An estimate of the impact of the climate change levy package on the public finances was published by HM Customs and Excise in the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the levy in April 2000 including national insurance implications for public sector employees. Subsequently in Budget 2001 the Government revised the estimate of the cost of the enhanced capital allowances for investments in energy-saving measures from its previous figure of £100 million per year to £70 million for 2001–02 and £130 million for 2002–03.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what annual tax revenues resulted from receipts under the I-E formula in(a) 1997 and (b) each subsequent financial year to date. [42494]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Companies' corporation tax liabilities are based on their whole profits less any tax reliefs and deductions. Receipts are not attributed to specific parts of the tax calculation. Therefore, no reliable figures are available on the tax revenues generated by the I-E formula.

  Capital Assets
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 889W, on capital assets, on what occasions since 1997 the accounting treatment of a PPP

  1229W
  in the departmental accounts has differed from the accounting treatment in the national accounts; and if he will make a statement. [42499]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Matthew Taylor, dated 14 March 2002:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on capital assets. (42499)

  There have been no differences because, as explained in my earlier reply, national accounts follow the treatment decided by departments on the basis of generally accepted accounting practice.

  Earnings
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the value was of 60 per cent. of median earnings(a) in cash terms and (b) at December 2001 prices in each year from 1985. [42623]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 14 March 2002:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question requesting the value of 60 per cent of median earnings in cash terms and at December 2001 prices. (42623)

  The New Earnings Survey (NES) provides earnings data for Great Britain for full-time employees on adult rates of pay. In the attached table, figures are provided for 60 per cent of median earnings for April of each year from 1986 to 2001, the latest date for which figures are available, given in cash terms and at December 2001 prices.

  60 per cent. median earnings

  Great Britain, not seasonally adjusted

  60 per cent. Median Earnings (£)

  At December 2001 Prices (£)

  April 1986

  98.20

  174.30

  April 1987

  105.03

  178.90

  April 1988

  114.85

  188.24

  April 1989

  125.55

  190.47

  April 1990

  135.33

  186.19

  April 1991

  148.21

  193.09

  April 1992

  158.84

  198.43

  April 1993

  164.11

  202.39

  April 1994

  168.63

  202.78

  April 1995

  174.56

  203.14

  April 1996

  180.60

  205.22

  April 1997

  188.92

  209.58

  April 1998

  196.35

  209.39

  April 1999

  203.63

  213.74

  April 2000

  211.90

  216.01

  April 2001

  222.08

  222.46

  Note:

  1. Earnings are for full-time employees on adult rates whose pay is unaffected by absence.

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey, Retail Price Index.

  Double Taxation
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the schedule to a draft Order in Council ratifying the new double taxation convention between the United 1230W
  Kingdom and the United States of America will be laid before Parliament; for what reason a draft Order in Council has not been laid before Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [42601]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We are considering a number of matters relating to the application of the double taxation convention. The intention is to submit the convention to Parliament on completion of these considerations.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with(a) the European Commission and (b) other EU member states on the terms of the new double taxation convention agreed between the UK and USA, signed on 24 July 2001; and if he will make a statement. [43085]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None.

  Community Investment Tax Credit
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which projects under the community investment tax credit initiative are ineligible for EC state aid; and if he will make a statement. [43490]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are currently in discussions with the European Commission to assess the compatibility of the community investment tax credit with the state aids rules. These discussions have not yet been concluded.

  Government Finance
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will outline the Government's financing plans for 2002–03. [43888]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's preliminary financing plans for 2002–03 can be found in the "Debt and Reserves Management Report 2002–03". In order to comply with the requirement outlined in "The Code for Fiscal Stability" that a debt management report be published every financial year, the "Debt and Reserves Management Report 2002–03" has been published today. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library. Additionally, it is also available on HM Treasury and the Debt Management Office websites www.hm-treasury.gov.uk and www.dmo.gov.uk, respectively. An update of the financing plans will be published in this year's Budget papers on 17 April.

  Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what reports his Department publishes on public sector pension schemes; [43347]

  (2) what reports were published by Government Departments from their agencies dealing primarily with public sector pension schemes in the last five years. [43346]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for administering individual public sector pension schemes and accounting for them rests with the bodies responsible for the schemes, not the Treasury, which does not keep lists of all related publications. Reports on individual schemes, on matters such as actuarial valuations and scheme accounts, are
  1231W
  published by the body responsible for the scheme or, in the case of NHS and teachers pension scheme valuations, the Government Actuary's department. In July 2000 the Treasury published the report of the Government review of ill-health retirement in the public sector, which was a Treasury-chaired review.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Theatres
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many theatres there are in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) coalfield constituencies. [41325]

  Dr. Howells
  We have contacted the Arts Council of England to request the information required, and my noble Friend the Minister for the Arts will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available, placing copies of her letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Cinema Screens
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many cinema screens there are in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) coalfield constituencies. [41810]

  Dr. Howells
  I understand from the Cinema Exhibitors Association that there are 2,954 cinema screens in the UK. Figures are not kept by coalfield constituency.

  Public Libraries
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many functioning public libraries there were, broken down by local authority, in England in each year since 1997. [42238]

  Dr. Howells
  This information is not readily available. However, we can extract and then represent the required data from the 149 English Library Authorities from existing reference sources. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as this has been done, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Ministerial Design Champions Group
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether the Ministerial Design Champions Group will publish an annual report; and if she will make a statement. [41965]

  Dr. Howells
  The Ministerial Design Champions Group will not publish an annual report. However, each Ministerial Design Champion is committed to producing an Action Plan about what his or her Department is doing to promote better public buildings. My noble Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Chair of the Design Champions Group, has asked Departments to report progress on their Action Plans at the next ministerial meeting in May.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on energy costs incurred by her Department in each of the last 10 years. [42433]
  1232W
  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not have figures going back 10 years. The costs for the last eight years are:

  Financial year

  Energy cost (£)

  1994–95

  114,428

  1995–96

  114,847

  1996–97

  117,437

  1997–98

  121,916

  1998–99

  106,634

  1999–2000

  1132,908

  2000–01

  1134,527

  2001–02

  2132,825

  1 Includes part year occupation of a building.

  2 Figures for 2001–02 are costs to date.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to her Department of the parental leave directive. [42485]

  Dr. Howells
  To date no staff in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have taken parental leave. We estimate future costs to be minimal as parental leave is currently unpaid. The Department already offers paid and unpaid maternity leave, paid paternity leave, career breaks, paid and unpaid special leave and a range of flexible working patterns, so we do not envisage the current parental leave arrangements to be of significant benefit to the Department.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her Department's policy is towards age discrimination. [42582]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is committed to providing a working environment where no one is disadvantaged. Our policy is not to discriminate against staff or eligible applicants for posts on the grounds of gender, marital status, race, nationality, ethnic origin, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation. Staff are treated equally and fairly and decisions are based solely on objective and job related criteria.

  Verulamium
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will withdraw consent for ploughing on the archaeological site of Verulamium in Hertfordshire until an agreement on compensation is reached. [41840]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 March 2002]: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State is aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the impact of ploughing at Verulamium. Officials are currently exploring with English Heritage a number of issues relating to this site including possible compensation.

  Ethiopian Artefacts
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Ethiopian artefacts that remain in British possession from the raid on Mogdala in 1868. [42723]

  Dr. Howells
  There have been no requests for return from the Ethiopian Government for any of the objects in question. With regard to the manuscripts in the British Library, microfilm copies have been deposited in Addis Ababa, and scholars have access to the originals at the Library. We understand that the Ethiopian Government are content with these arrangements.

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Thousand tonnes

  Percentage

  Thousand tonnes

  Percentage

  Thousand tonnes

  Percentage

  Thousand tonnes

  Percentage

  Landfilled

  21,969

  85

  23,110

  85

  23,005

  82

  23,714

  81

  Incinerated

  2,060

  8

  1,690

  6

  2,163

  8

  2,285

  8

  Composted and recycled1

  1,803

  7

  2,127

  8

  2,601

  9

  3,218

  11

  Other disposal methods

  147

  1

  238

  1

  143

  1

  115

  0

  Total municipal waste

  25,979

  100

  27,166

  100

  27,912

  100

  29,332

  100

  1 Separate figures for composted and recycled waste not available.

  Data for earlier years are not available. 2000–01 data are currently being collected from local authorities. Totals and percentages may not add, due to rounding. Municipal waste in Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  The Government's vision for sustainable waste management and their plan of action for achieving that vision are set out in its waste strategy for England and Wales, 'Waste Strategy 2000'. The strategy sets out the Government's targets for dealing with household waste: to recycle or compost at least 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005, 30 per cent. by 2010 and 33 per cent. by 2015. To ensure that all local authorities contribute to achieving the Government's targets, local authorities have been set challenging individual statutory performance standards for recycling and composting.

  The Government have also set out the 'waste hierarchy' for municipal waste, whereby minimising the amount of waste produced is the preferred option wherever possible, with re-use, recycling and composting as preferable to incineration and landfill.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the outcome of the operation in respect of abandoned vehicles in Medway; what proposals she is considering for its extension to other local authorities; and if she will make a statement. [42559]

  Mr. Meacher
  Kent police piloted a "blitz" approach on abandoned vehicles in the Medway area (Operation Cubit) in co-operation with Kent county council, Medway council, DVLA and the Kent fire brigade for eight weeks in early 2001. To inform any decision on Cubit's expansion, the Home Office commissioned a detailed evaluation of the pilot. This is in progress but initial

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Municipal Waste
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much, and what proportion, of municipal waste has been(a) landfilled, (b) incinerated, (c) composted and (d) re-cycled in the United Kingdom in each year since 1990; and if she will make a statement. [42562]

  Mr. Meacher
  Data on municipal waste are available from the Department's Municipal Waste Management Survey 1999–2000. The results for England and Wales are as follows:

  findings are that Cubit was highly effective at removing vehicles from the streets but that since Cubit ceased operations abandoned and untaxed vehicles have been returning to the areas originally targeted.

  Since the original pilot in Medway, further operations have taken place and are shown in the table.

  Operation Cubit

  Date

  Swanley

  June 2001

  Dartford

  October 2001

  Gravesend

  October 2001

  Maidstone

  January 2002

  Swale

  January 2002

  Hastings

  February 2002

  Brighton

  February 2002

  Liverpool

  March 2002

  To date the operations have removed almost 3,000 abandoned unlicensed vehicles from the streets of Kent and Hastings. We will be making an announcement very shortly about the extension of Operation Cubit to other local authorities.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures or statistics are collated to quantify the number of abandoned cars dumped by local authority area. [42242]

  Mr. Meacher
  Information on the number of abandoned vehicles removed by local authorities was collected for the first time in the Department's 2000–01 Municipal Waste Management Survey which should be published in July 2002.

  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) now ask local authorities in England and Wales to include in their waste collection statistics figures on the number of abandoned and surrendered vehicles. The first figures requested cover the period 1 April 1999 to 31 march 2000. This information

  1235W
  is published in the CIPFA waste collection and disposal statistics and summary tables are available at www.ipf.co.uk/sis. CIPFA will be requesting this information in future years.

  Although the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 does not require local authorities to keep records of the numbers of abandoned vehicles that they deal with, we would expect them to do so because the numbers involved are on the increase and this has implications for their budgets.

  Air Conditioning
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether an installer capable of installing not-in-kind air conditioning was invited to quote for the recent contract for the new departmental building in Temple Quay, Bristol; and if she will make a statement. [41180]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  Temple Quay house is a leased building and as such contracting for individual elements was not a matter for Government. However, WSP South Ltd. have designed the environmental services to provide a comfortable environment with minimal use of comfort cooling ie air-conditioning by adopting a mixed mode strategy. Full comfort cooling is provided only in areas where this strategy is impractical due to high heat gains eg computer rooms, printing rooms etc.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which consultant was used to advise on the installation of air conditioning during the recent equipping of a new departmental building, Temple Quay, Bristol. [41178]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  WSP South Ltd. and their agents advised on the design and installation of the air conditioning units.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Northern Ireland
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will outline her rights and responsibilities that(a) exist and (b) are proposed in relation to Northern Ireland. [40754]

  The Solicitor-General
  I can exercise any of the powers of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. Following devolution of justice functions to Northern Ireland, I will have the power to exercise all the functions of the Advocate General for Northern Ireland.

  Immunity
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Solicitor-General what criteria are adopted by the law officers in granting immunity from prosecution. [40761]

  The Solicitor-General
  An immunity will be granted only if justified in the public interest, and generally where an assessment is made that it is more important to obtain information and assistance from the suspected person than to prosecute that individual.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what steps she takes to monitor the consistency of decisions to prosecute made by the Crown Prosecution Service. [40762]

  The Solicitor-General
  Prosecution decisions made by the Crown Prosecution Service are taken in accordance with the principles set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors so that it can make fair and consistent casework decisions.

  The application of the Code is underpinned by training and by line-management monitoring. In addition, casework performance data are collected and published each year in the Crown Prosecution Service's Annual Report to the Attorney-General and presented to Parliament.

  The work of the Crown Prosecution Service is also subject to inspection by HM CPS Inspectorate, an independent statutory body established in 2000. The Chief Inspector is appointed by, and reports to, the Attorney-General on the quality of casework undertaken by the CPS.

  Fraud Prosecutions
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment her Department has made of the obstacles to securing prosecutions for major fraud. [40763]

  The Solicitor-General
  Since its inception, the Serious Fraud Office has identified some common obstacles to securing prosecutions of major fraud cases and these can arise at either the investigative stage or during the trial. During the investigation these can include:Dearth of police resource and expertise. This is addressed in the recent report of the Interdepartmental Working Party, chaired by the SFO, which has recommended the establishment of a national Police Fraud Squad or increased resources for the SFO to enable them to use more civilian investigators.
  Sheer weight of documentary and computer-generated material which has to be sifted, analysed and organised often under constraints of time.
  Most cases of major fraud have an international association as either the evidence, the witnesses or defendants are outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

  Obstacles at the trial stage include:
  Lack of a single substantive offence of "fraud", which obliges the prosecutor to charge theft or deception offences.
  Demonstrating where dishonesty lies in unfamiliar commercial and financial transactions where the forum is unfamiliar with the context or the financial instruments involved.
  Attempting to simplify what are, in many cases, essentially very complex commercial transactions in specialist financial markets can detract from the ability to demonstrate the "whole picture".
  Availability of trained judges with experience of serious fraud cases. This is an issue currently being addressed by the senior presiding judge.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Solicitor-General what contribution the Serious Fraud Office is making to the Government's objective of reducing money laundering. [40760]
  1237W
  The Solicitor-General
  The Serious Fraud Office investigates and prosecutes offences involving serious or complex fraud. It also pursues related laundering offences. It is investigating or has prosecuted seven cases involving money laundering offences (under the Criminal Justice Act 1988) in the last five years. The Serious Fraud Office also assists foreign competent judicial authorities with requests for information and the gathering of evidence via the UK Central Authority thus serving as an important part of the global deterrent against money laundering.

  In many cases, financial gains are illusory or have long since been dissipated but whenever it is appropriate and practicable, the SFO will pursue proceeds during the investigation and these may be confiscated by the trial judge for distribution to creditors and investors. In addition, liquidators or administrative receivers can pursue recovery through civil proceedings.

WALES

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the appointments made by his Department since 1 May 1997 of chairmen of(a) non-departmental public bodies, (b) commissions, (c) inquiries, (d) agencies and (e) task forces; and if he will list their (i) term of office, (ii) salary and (iii) known political affiliation (A) past and (B) present. [33890]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Information on the number, remit and membership of task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews has been published by the Cabinet Office on a regular basis. The first report was published on 11 January 2000 and gives information for the period from 1 May 1997 to 31 October 1999. A second report was published on 27 July 2000, and covered the period 1 November 1999 to 30 April 2000. A third report was published on 13 December 2000 covering the period 1 May 2000 to 31 October 2000. The most recent report: "Task Forces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews", was issued in October 2001, and covers the period of the financial year 2000–01. Copies of these reports are placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Information on political affiliations is sought at appointment stage but is not collected centrally. Membership and voting behaviour is a matter on which all citizens have the right to privacy.

  The list of appointments made by my Department since 1 May 1997 has been placed in the Library.

  National Assembly for Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many meetings there have been between Ministers in his Department and the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales and his Cabinet in each of the past 12 months; and if he will list the(a) date and (b) subject of each meeting. [40507]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Minister of the National Assembly nearly every week and other Ministers of the Assembly as the need arises. In addition my hon.1238W
  Friend the Under-Secretary has regular meetings with Assembly Ministers. At these meetings we discuss a wide range of issues.

  Wales Office
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase the number of staff in the Wales Office. [43229]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I told the House on 23 January 2002, that I had commissioned an external study of the Wales Office staffing level,Official Report, column 873. I am considering the findings of that report and I will, as promised, write to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs when I have decided what changes I might make.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to move the location of the Wales Office in London. [43222]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have no such plans.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many special advisers were employed by him(a) between 1 May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive; and what the total amount spent on special advisers by the Department was in each of those years. [41262]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since becoming Secretary of State for Wales in August 1999 I have been supported by two special adviser posts.

  They are paid in accordance with the Cabinet Office pay scales for special advisers: these are currently under review.

  Public-private Partnerships (Consultants)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total external spending by his Department was on public-private partnership 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 PPP consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by his Department over this period; and if he will make a statement. [43194]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 1 February 2002 in respect of the Private Finance Initiative,Official Report, column 573W.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list(a) the amount budgeted and (b) the total spent on the free television licence for the over-75s in each financial year since its introduction. [43366]

  Maria Eagle
  Annually Managed Expenditure is not cash limited.
  1239W
  We made payments on behalf of DCMS as follows:

  Paid to the BBC (£)

  Television licence revenue forgone

  BBC administration costs

  2000–01

  1305,503,000

  17,061,000

  2001–02

  356,296,000

  4,575,000

  1 Includes payment of £7.165 million made in 2001–02 in respect of 2000–01.

  Note:

  Any under/overpayment as of 31 March in a given year is settled by way of adjustment to the final payment in the subsequent financial year.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of people entitled to a non-automatic winter fuel payment for the 2001–02 winter; and of that number how many have yet to make a claim. [43356]

  Maria Eagle
  This winter, 2001–02, an estimated 500,000 people became newly entitled to a winter fuel payment. At least 255,000 of these people have been paid automatically.

  Exact numbers of people who need to claim are not available; however, up to 8 March, over 217,000 claim forms had been received. Eligible people who need to submit a claim have until 30 March 2002 to do so and it is up to the individual to choose whether to claim.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will set out the national baseline targets for the total weekly benefit savings to be achieved by local authorities in each year since the introduction of the scheme; and if he will make a statement on(a) the basis on which the level of these targets were determined and (b) the performance of local authorities in meeting these targets in each year. [25732]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Tables showing individual threshold figures and the individual performance against the thresholds for each local authority, from the introduction of the weekly benefit savings anti-fraud incentive scheme in April 1993 to March 2001, have been placed in the Library.

  The level of the threshold targets was determined according to local authority housing benefit and council tax benefit (HB/CTB) expenditure and by weighted case load to reflect estimates of relative risks of different types of cases using available data, such as the housing benefit accuracy reviews.

  The weekly benefit savings scheme is being replaced over two years from April 2001 with a new, more comprehensive scheme to reduce fraud and error in HB/CTB covering prevention, detection, sanctions and prosecutions.

  Economic Statistics
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list for(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales, (d) Northern Ireland, (e) each English region and (f) each local authority in the United Kingdom
  1240W
  (i) income support claimants as a percentage of the population over 16, (ii) employment rates as a percentage of the working age population, (iii) economic activity rates as a percentage of the working population and (iv) unemployment rates. [34306]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information has been placed in the Library. Information on Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Employment
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the implications for the UK following the adoption by the European Commission of an action plan to remove obstacles to EU workers' mobility; and if he will make a statement. [37493]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department is currently considering the Commission's Action Plan on Skills and Mobility and the implications for this Department.

  The Action Plan contains a number of proposals which fall within the policy responsibility of other Government Departments, principally the Department for Education and Skills. We will work with those Departments to agree the UK's position.

  Benefits
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review the current benefits system; and when the last review was carried out. [37952]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The benefits system is constantly under review.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the current rates of benefit are; when they were set; and what criteria were used to establish the level of benefit. [37953]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 895W.

  Rates of benefit are reviewed each year taking into consideration the change in the general level of prices in the September prior to the April in which the new rates are to come into force. Generally, contributory and non-contributory benefits are uprated by the Retail Prices Index and income-related benefits by the Rossi index (RPI less housing costs). However, there is discretion to increase rates other than in line with the rate of inflation, for example, the minimum income guarantee was increased by more than inflation to help combat pensioner poverty.

  Means-tested Benefit
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of children under 16 live in households where families claim means tested benefit in(a) St. Helens, South, (b) Merseyside, (c) the North West and (d) England. [38269]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available at constituency level for means-tested benefits.
  1241W
  As at May 2000, in England there were 2,310 thousand (22.9 per cent.) children under age 16 in families on means-tested benefits, and in the North West (including Merseyside) there were 390 thousand (27.2 per cent.) children under age 16 in families on means-tested benefits.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many retirement pensioners are receiving the minimum income guarantee in(a) Great Britain, (b) each region of Great Britain and (c) each parliamentary constituency; and what the percentage change in the number of claimants in each category has been from the previous year. [39546]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Poverty
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what proportion of children were living in poverty defined as living below 50 per cent. mean income after housing costs, expressed as an average for the period(a) 1992 to 1997 and (b) 1997 to 2001; [40294]

  (2) what proportion of the population was living in poverty, defined as living below 50 per cent. mean income after housing costs, expressed as an average for the period (a) 1992 to 1997 and (b) 1997 to 2001. [40296]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Such information on low incomes as is available can be found in the publication Households Below Average Income 1994–95 to 1999–2000, a copy of which can be found in the Library. Data for the financial year 2000–01 will be published on 11 April 2002.

  Employment and Social Policy Council (Scottish Representation)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether a Scottish Executive Minister will be a member of the UK delegation to the Employment and Social Policy European Union Council of Ministers meeting on 7 March; and what information is being provided by his Department to guarantee effective pre-council scrutiny by the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament. [40321]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 4 March 2002]: No Scottish Executive Minister attended the Employment and Social Policy Council Meeting on 7 March 2002.

  It is the responsibility of the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the Scottish Executive's involvement in preparations for EU Council meetings. These arrangements are a matter for the Committee and the Scottish Executive. The Department provides information to Scottish Executive officials as part of that process.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will estimate the monetary value of Child Support Agency maintenance assessments for 2000–01 that have been(a) collected and arranged and (b) classified as outstanding debt; [33341]
  1242W
  (2) how many child support assessments the CSA processed in 2000–01 in (a) less than 20 weeks, (b) between 20 and 52 weeks and (c) over 52 weeks; [33344]

  (3) if he will estimate the (a) number and (b) value of compensation payments awarded by the CSA in 2000–01. [33345]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 13 March 2002:

  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from me.

  You ask three questions of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: one, if he will estimate the monetary value of Child support Agency maintenance assessments for year ending March 2001 that have been (a) collected and arranged and (b) classified as outstanding debt. Two, how many child support assessments the CSA processed in 2000 in (a) less than 20 weeks (b) between 20 and 52 weeks and (c) over 52 weeks. Three, if he will estimate the (a) number and (b) value of compensation payments awarded by the CSA in 2000–01.

  Some of the information you have requested is not available in the format you have requested.

  The total amount of maintenance that was collected and arranged as at March 2001 was £757.53 million, this is compared to £712.24 million for year ending March 2000 and £635.67 million for year ending March 1999. The amount of maintenance that was owed as at year ending March 2001 is £527.80 million. This amount has been accruing since the inception of the Agency in April 1993. It is not possible to show how much of this figure relates to any specific year.

  Table 1 on the attached annex shows the number of Full Maintenance Assessment and Interim Maintenance Assessment Cases cleared in the year ending March 2001 and number of weeks it took to process them.

  In the period ending March 2001 we have paid out £7.9 million in compensation on an estimated 12,696 cases. This figure includes over £1.1 million in Advance Payments of maintenance. These are lump sum payments of arrears paid to a parent with care when the Agency has delayed actioning a case. The arrears are however recovered from the non-resident parent over a period of time.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Annex 1: Table 1

  Number of cases processed in year ending March 2001

  Maintenance assessment

  Time taken to process claims

  Full

  Interim

  Under 20 weeks

  53,287

  1,139

  Between 20 to 52 weeks

  26,846

  1,246

  Over 52 weeks

  20,623

  1,390

  Total cases processed

  100,756

  3,775

  Source:

  Strategic assurance team

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Appointments
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appointments to public bodies have been made through
  1243W
  her Department (a) from April 2000 to March 2001 and (b) since 31 March 2001; and how many of these were (i) men and (ii) women. [42155]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  143 new non-judicial appointments were made to the Lord Chancellor's non-departmental public bodies from April 2000 to March 2001. Of these, 86 were men and 57 were women. Since 31 March 2001, 252 new appointments have been made: 151 men and 101 women.

  Golden Jubilee
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will announce the results of the civic honours competitions held to mark Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee. [44196]

  Mr. Wills
  I am pleased to announce that Her Majesty has commanded that city status should be granted to Preston, Newport, Stirling, Lisburn and Newry and that Exeter should be honoured with the grant of a Lord Mayoralty, to mark the Golden Jubilee.

  Before advising Her Majesty, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor consulted my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on the applications relevant to their Departments.

  On the advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Lord Chancellor exceptionally recommended, and Her Majesty agreed, that two towns in Northern Ireland should be granted city status on this occasion.

  I know that the unsuccessful applicants will be very disappointed not to have been honoured on such an important occasion. I can, however, assure them that the standard of all the applications was impressive and some were outstanding. The winners were particularly so and all deserve congratulations. The competitions have demonstrated a very positive attitude to Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee among towns and cities across the United Kingdom.

  Electoral Roll
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the constituencies which have marked registers missing from the 2001 general election. [30104]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is the responsibility of returning officers to ensure that marked registers are despatched to the Clerk of the Crown in good order and complete.

  The Guidance to Acting Returning Officers in England and Wales was revised and reissued by the Home Office prior to the general election in 2001 and, at the request of this Department, specifically sought to remind them of previous concerns about incomplete and missing registers.
  1244W
  Given that context, the list is of constituencies in England and Wales where, to date, some marked registers, or part of them, are or appear to be missing is as follows:

  Aylesbury

  Bassetlaw

  Battersea

  Blackburn

  Blackpool, North and Fleetwood

  Carlisle

  Chesterfield

  Chipping Barnet

  City of Chester

  Don Valley

  Doncaster, North

  East Surrey

  East Yorkshire

  Eastleigh

  Ellesmere Port

  Enfield, North

  Greenwich and Woolwich

  Halifax

  Harborough

  Hastings and Rye

  Hazel Grove Hereford

  Hexham

  Kettering

  Kingswood

  Milton Keynes, South-West

  Mole Valley

  Newark

  North Wiltshire

  Northampton, South

  Oxford, East

  Oxford, West and Abingdon

  Peterborough

  Portsmouth, South

  Reading, East

  Romsey

  Selby

  Sittingbourne

  Sleaford and North Hykeham

  South Dorset

  South Staffordshire

  Torridge and West Devon

  Twickenham

  Warwick

  Waveney.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2002,Official Report, column 972W, what the cost of refurbishing each ministerial private office was in each year since May 1997. [37897]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has not carried out any refurbishment of Ministers' private offices during the period specified. However, two additional
  1245W
  ministerial appointments have been made during this period and offices in Selborne house have been adapted for them. The work was carried out under a measured term maintenance contract and was not invoiced separately from other maintenance and repair work. It is not possible, therefore, to identify specific costs, but these are estimated to be less than £20,000 over the period.

  Juries (Ethnic Minorities)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on the proposals that courts ensure ethnic minority representation on juries in cases where the parties identify the possibility of race being an issue. [38256]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I have been asked to reply.

  To date, we have recorded 53 responses to Sir Robin Auld's recommendation on this issue. All the representations on Sir Robin's review of the criminal courts are being carefully considered and analysed in detail.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Al Yamamah Report
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 402W, who holds copies of the report. [35029]

  Mr. Alan Williams
  Copies of the 1992 National Audit Office Report on the Saudi Arabian Airforce Project—known as Project Al Yamamah—are held by the National Audit Office and the Ministry of Defence.

HEALTH

  Child Protection
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many case reviews following serious or fatal abuse under the Working Together to Safeguard Children Guidance have been held in each of the last five years; how many involved(a) child deaths, (b) serious physical assaults and (c) serious sexual abuse in each year; and what the ages and sex were of the children concerned. [39172]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not collected centrally on the numbers or types of serious case reviews that have been carried out in accordance with Chapter 8 of "Working Together to Safeguard Children" (1999).

  Taken together, the findings of serious case reviews are an important source of information to inform national policy and practice. The Department of Health is responsible for identifying and disseminating common themes and trends across review reports, and acting on lessons for policy and practice. We will shortly be publishing an overview report drawing out the key findings of a selection of case reviews from the last two years, and their implications for policy and practice. At the same time, we are developing a comprehensive database of all serious case reviews.

  NHS Professionals
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 699, if he will make a statement on the records maintained by NHS Professionals concerning the identity, history, training and qualifications of its temporary staff. [39782]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: Health Service Circular 2001–02 and the guidance NHS Professionals—"A co-ordinated, NHS-led approach to temporary staffing", sets out national standards for good employment practice. This includes, record keeping and using the best of modern information technology and call centre technology within agreed national frameworks for terms and conditions of service, delivering high quality patient care through clinical governance.

  The software used by NHS Professionals captures information on the identity, history, training and development and qualifications of its temporary staff helping to ensure the quality and accuracy of records relating to staff recruited through NHS Professionals.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training in clinical matters the staff at NHS Professionals call centres have received. [39678]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: All call centre staff receive appropriate training and induction to ensure quality service and clinical governance.

  Clinical specialists are used at the recruitment stage to ensure quality of temporary staff used by NHS Professionals.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the pensions costs of NHS professionals staff are charged out to its clients. [39680]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: Pensions costs are included in the management fee added on top of the hourly rate, currently at a maximum of 7.5 per cent.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what margins are added to the costs charged by NHS Professionals to its clients. [39679]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: The management fee aims to recoup operating costs and is currently set at a maximum of 7.5 per cent.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent on the set-up costs of NHS Professionals. [39677]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: National Health Service Professionals has been allocated £4 million to support the start up, as outlined in the Health Service Circular 2001–02, with £3 million this financial year to support the schemes extension. The service will be self-sustaining in the long-term and recoup costs directly from the NHS organisations using NHS Professionals.

  Press and Public Relations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence was used by his Director of Communications as the basis for his claims at a
  1247W
  conference of NHS trust and health authority chairmen as to (a) the public view of the NHS and (b) the media's responsibility for that public view. [39842]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: The information presented to national health service trust and health authority chairman was drawn from the British Social Attitudes Survey and on studies conducted by MORI and Test Research. Copies of these studies have been placed in the Library.

  Nurses
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions have been taken by the Weston Area NHS trust to recruit nursing staff from the Philippines; what the total cost of such recruitment has been; and whether additional resources have been made available to meet these costs. [40494]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: Weston Area national health service trust has not actively recruited nursing staff from overseas.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nursing staff are employed and (b) nursing vacancies there are for (i) the Avon health authority and (ii) the Weston area NHS trust. [40493]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Nursing staff in post (September 2000) and three month vacancy rate (March 2001)—Avon health authority and Weston area health trust

  Avon health authority

  Weston area health NHS trust

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  Three month vacancy rate per cent.

  4.0

  0.0

  Three month vacancies (wte)

  250

  0

  Staff in post (wte)

  5,900

  340

  Notes:

  1. Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  2. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the September 2000 medical and dental and non-medical work force census (whole time equivalent).

  3. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  4. Percentages rounded to one decimal place.

  Source:

  NHS Vacancy Survey, March 2001 and NHS Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2000.

  Ambulance Service (Diabetics)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about his policy in relation to the recruitment and retention of people with diabetes in the ambulance service. [40639]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 March 2002]: There is no bar to the recruitment and retention of people with diabetes in the ambulance service. Decisions on fitness for work are made on an individual basis depending upon the overall status of the applicant and their ability to perform their duties without risk to themselves or others.

  NHS Cleaners
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of cleaning staff employed by the NHS. [40645]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 March 2002]: We recognise that the standard of cleanliness in our hospitals is important to patients, their relatives, staff and the public. The investment we have made since the publication of the NHS Plan has seen standards raised across the board. The implementation of the Patient Environment Action Team programme has ensured that this issue remains high on trusts' agendas and a further round of unannounced inspections is currently under way to ensure that the progress made has been maintained and, where necessary, built upon.

  As announced in the NHS Plan, there is now a national standard of cleanliness for the NHS which all trusts with in-patient beds are required to report against as part of the performance assessment framework. This means that for the first time there is a comprehensive standard for the whole NHS which is outcome-based and measures what is, or is not, clean. NHS trusts will need to employ sufficient staff to ensure that these standards are met, or to adjust cleaning contracts accordingly.

  The responsibility for ensuring wards are clean has been restored to ward sisters, with the support of modern matrons, and they have also been given the authority to withhold payment where the required standards are not met.

  The NHS Plan also set a target for ward-housekeepers to be in place in 50 per cent. of hospitals by 2004. The duties of the ward house-keeper will include working alongside cleaning staff, who may be directly or indirectly employed, to ensure that ward environments are clean, tidy and well maintained and they will report to ward sisters. Already 41 per cent. of trusts have started to introduce ward-housekeepers.

  Attracting staff to work in the NHS requires there to be career opportunities and pathways which are attractive and flexible. The introduction of the ward-housekeeper role provides a further pathway for staff, who may enter the NHS as cleaners, to develop their skills and continue their career in the NHS.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cleaners are employed by private contractors providing services to the NHS. [40643]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 March 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  "The National Standards of Cleanliness for the National Health Service" was published in April 2001, and all trusts are required to ensure that these standards are implemented from this year. NHS trusts will need to ensure that cleaning contracts are adjusted to take account of these standards.

  The national standards have been developed to ensure that all trusts with in-patient beds apply the same standards of cleanliness regardless of who provides the cleaning services.

  Cleaners
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cleaners were employed by the NHS in each of the past 20 years. [40644]
  1250W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 March 2002]: The information requested is not available. The statistics collected in this area by the Department relate to all ancillary staffs and it is not possible to distinguish the numbers of cleaning staff.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bristol): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Gibraltar: European Parliament Elections
Baroness Hooperasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to implement the Matthews judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in order to give the people of Gibraltar their right to vote in the next elections to the European Parliament.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham (Dean): My Lords, we are committed to extending the European Parliament franchise to Gibraltar in time for the 2004 European Parliament elections. The Government are now seeking legislative time in order to introduce domestic legislation for this purpose. We are currently considering the detail of the legislative and practical arrangements, in consultation with the Government of Gibraltar.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I had been hoping for some good news today and I therefore thank the Minister for her very positive reply. To clarify the position further, will she tell the House whether this issue was on the agenda at the recent discussions between her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister? If so, has Spain accepted the decision of the British Government to implement the decision of the European Court of Human Rights? What is the timetable? In other words, when may we expect to see the Bill?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I must make it clear that bringing forward this legislation is not a matter for negotiation with Spain under the Brussels process. The two issues are quite separate. The Brussels process does not impinge on this issue. After the 1999 ECHR judgment, the Government of Spain would not allow an amendment to the 1976 Act to go forward. We are therefore proceeding to domestic legislation because, although Spain's position might or might not be challengeable, there is a political commitment on the Government's part to enable the franchise to be completed in time for the 2004 elections. That might not be possible to achieve were we to try to do that outside domestic legislation.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, are there any plans to extend voting rights in the European Parliament elections to Britain's other two European territories; namely, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? I suppose it might be argued that the Isle of Man
938
is outside the European Union as it was once part of Norway. As I understood from a remark made by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House some time ago, the constitutional relationship between the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom is governed by an Act of 1204 of the Crown as Duke of Normandy. It seems to me that it is rather hard to argue that the Duchy of Normandy is outside the European Union.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord certainly has me stumped on legislation going back to 1204. What I can tell the noble Lord is that the Channel Islands are outside the European Union and, as such, extending the European Parliament franchise to them is not possible.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her positive and detailed reply. Frankly, I was expecting the Answer to be more ambiguous and vague. I am pleasantly surprised that the Government are pressing ahead with these plans. Will the Minister tell us how the process will work? Presumably, Gibraltar is much too small to be a Euro-constituency on its own. Is the plan to annex it or append it to, say, the London bureau region or to some other southern region of the UK; and will the Gibraltarians thereby be voting with their British counterparts as part of a list of members of the European Parliament in the future? How will the process actually work?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord thinks that we are not being ambiguous and vague on this matter. Let me try to be even clearer. We began discussions with the Government of Gibraltar on this issue on 24th January. The noble Lord is right: Gibraltar, with only 16,000 on its electoral list, will not make up a European constituency on its own. So the issue is to which United Kingdom constituency or constituencies it might be linked. The Government of Gibraltar have accepted that that is the position. The discussions on this matter are proceeding. We hope to send a detailed letter to the Government of Gibraltar about the way forward before Easter, and to allow the Government of Gibraltar adequate time to consider the position and to respond to it. I hope that that gives a fairly good view of the imminent timetabling of how the exchanges are proceeding.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the Government have much sympathy as regards the tenacity with which they are pursuing the negotiations? I welcome the announcement that she has just made. It is important to get out of the deadlock which has prevailed for so long. Does she also recognise that, if the agreement that is to be arrived at is to have any chance of success, it must not be presented as a "take it or leave it" agreement, unsupported by good will on the part of Spain? It will be essential, if the people of Gibraltar are not to reject what might otherwise be a sensible conclusion, for the proposed agreement to be accompanied by solid, strong evidence of good faith and good will on the part

939
of the Spanish. That must go beyond gestures—such as the granting, for example, of telephone lines without being prepared to grant recognition of the international dialling code. Will the Minister accept that it is crucial that any agreement that might result should be endorsed and accompanied by pre-emptive demonstrations of good will on the part of the Spanish Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I want to make it clear that the discussions about the franchise for the European Parliament in time for the elections in 2004 are completely separate from what is happening under the Brussels process and the possibility of proposals being put forward to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum. It is essential to make clear that these are two entirely different issues—although they are both about Gibraltar and it could perhaps be argued that one may influence the other in the minds of the people of Gibraltar.
So far as concerns the other issue—the negotiations through the Brussels process—I agree with the noble and learned Lord that any proposals that are put forward must be attractive to the people of Gibraltar. It has to go beyond gestures. I personally do not believe, as we have discussed, that telephone lines are a matter of gesture. However, there are still difficulties on the issue, because Spain has still not acknowledged the international dialling code for Gibraltar, which leaves us with a certain number of problems. These are substantive difficulties with which we are dealing—border delays and other issues of which the House is well aware. It must be made clear in the negotiations that any agreement must be sufficiently attractive to the people of Gibraltar to enable them to support it in a referendum.

Prison Education
3.8 p.m.
Lord Quirkasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to improve the provision of education in HM prisons.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Prison Service and the Department for Education and Skills launched a partnership last year which created the new Prisoners Learning and Skills Unit. Its purpose is to improve the quality and quantity of education in all establishments and ensure that prisoners have the opportunity to gain the skills and qualifications to find work or pursue further learning on release. We will look at targets and funding, and at developing basic skills and other provisions. We will introduce a national quality improvement strategy to raise standards and we will support continuity of provision when prisoners leave custody.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I take some comfort from that reply and I am grateful to the Minister. But is he
940
aware that in our biggest prison of all, HMP Wandsworth, the otherwise attractive education unit can provide for barely 90 prisoners at a time, and, even so, is open and available for only 20 hours a week? Is not this grossly inadequate for a prison housing some 1,400 inmates?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord has drawn attention to pressures in the system. I recognise the point that he makes. He will appreciate that we are increasing the resources for the provision of education by 15 per cent over the next three years. That will help in providing additional facilities across the system. He will also recognise the intense pressure on the system with the increase in numbers that has occurred in recent months.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to tell us the ratio of teachers to the total prison population at the moment?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have a swathe of statistics, but I do not have that one, so I cannot give it to the noble Lord. The only comfort that I can give him is that the intention behind the quality unit is to ensure that the provision of education reaches the same standard as that for people outside prison. Therefore, I think that I can assure him that resources will be made available to that end.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while literacy and numeracy are fundamental to the provision of education in prison, the teaching of art, music and drama is equally important? The annual Koestler awards are but one example of the importance and the huge potential of that provision. It is all too often not available, due to its lower priority and the frequent demands of cost-cutting. Given that the idea of formal education does not appeal to the majority of prisoners, does the Minister also agree that arts education often provides a valuable gateway into more formal learning and is therefore doubly justified?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Baroness. There is no doubt that the features that she described play an important part in prison education. However, the whole House will realise that there are a disproportionate number of people with very low skill levels in prison. Some 60 per cent of prisoners do not have the skill levels that we expect of the average 11 year-old. There is little prospect of us being able to ensure that people can earn their living and fulfil their part in society after they have discharged their responsibility in prison unless they have the skills that employers will be able to use. That is why basic skills inevitably form an important part of the programme.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that volunteers coming into prisons can do a most useful job by helping prisoners who cannot read or write? Will he pay tribute to the many volunteers and encourage that practice?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, indeed I shall. There is no doubt that the enormous progress that we have made on literacy and numeracy would never have been possible on government resources alone. They have been supplemented by an enormous amount of work by volunteers— both those working outside prisons among the general population and, as the noble Baroness rightly identified, those working with prisoners. We should pay due regard and tribute to that valuable work.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when a child of school leaving age is received into prison, the prison is often not told of any information about that child's previous education? As appropriate education is important to their future, is the Minister willing to ensure that that information is passed through?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is an important point. We all recognise that the distressing number of juveniles who come within the framework of the custody system need particular attention. I emphasise that we are seeking to double the number of hours available for education for juveniles. That reflects the increased concentration of effort on that group. The right reverend Prelate is entirely right that we cannot improve education effectively unless we know the background of the people whom we are seeking to educate.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a very distinguished statistician who is a Member of this House confided at No. 10 this morning that if you are in doubt about a figure, 10 per cent will usually do? I am not suggesting that the £50 million spent at present represents only 10 per cent of what is desirable, but there is a massively strong economic as well as social case for a great increase in expenditure on education in prisons for the good of all of us, as well as of the prisoners.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contribution, particularly given his great background in education. I assure him that this morning's celebration by the Prime Minister of the provision of skills in this country was a reflection of our growing emphasis on the need to direct resources in that area. The noble Lord is right that education for the prison population is an important element if we are to reduce recidivism and, eventually, to reduce the costs to society in every respect.

Drivers: Experience and Age
3.16 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce provisional "P-plates" for newly qualified drivers and consider a requirement that drivers from the age of 70 should produce evidence of a recent satisfactory eye test when applying for the renewal of a driving licence.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, two weeks ago the Government published a consultation document Introducing a more structured approach to learning to drive, inviting views on the possible use of probationary plates by newly qualified drivers. A decision will be made in the light of that consultation on the matter raised by the noble Baroness and on the other measures consulted on.
On renewal at age 70 and thereafter, drivers must declare any medical condition that may affect their safety to drive, including deteriorating eyesight. There is no evidence to suggest a need for more stringent measures at present, but, given its importance to safe driving, the issue is kept under constant review.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he know that during the passage of the most recent road safety legislation, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and I were very keen on promoting P-plates or R-plates for new drivers? Northern Ireland has R-plates; Australia has P-plates. The noble Viscount produced valuable evidence from Northern Ireland and I produced a considerable amount from Australia. Since then it has become even clearer that a high number of accidents are caused by new, young drivers. It is estimated that 38,000 road users a year are killed or injured in accidents involving at least one driver with less than two years' experience. Does the Minister agree that such plates would have the great benefit of identifying such drivers so that additional speed limits could be imposed on them?
On the issue of eyesight tests, does the Minister accept that many people are not aware of deteriorating eyesight? Now that eye tests are free again, what is there to stop people having them, particularly as the administration has to look at applications for renewal every few years? What harm would there be in that? There should be no extra expense.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is quite a challenge. I have noted the noble Baroness's interest in P-plates over a number of years and was advised about it in preparation. I share her concern about the relatively high accident rate among inexperienced drivers, who are usually also young drivers. The consultation paper is an excellent opportunity for the noble Baroness and others to put their evidence to the department before it comes to a view. I shall ensure that that happens. The central debate will be about the extent to which we should try to improve the experience of drivers before

943
they take the test and the extent to which we should put conditions on drivers following the test. That is why the consultation goes into a wide range of options.
The eyesight test is now free, although it is almost certain that there would be some charge by opticians were we to require a certificate to be produced. The core point is that there is still no evidence that older drivers—70-plus—pose a significant accident problem. They have lower accident rates than most other age cohorts, particularly—as one would expect—cohorts composed of the young. The Government believe that the current voluntary system—whereby older drivers are expected every three years to make a proper health declaration, backed by a check with their GP or a declaration by the court or insurers—seems to be working satisfactorily.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, while considering the principle and consequences of proof of age at one end of the spectrum, will the Minister also consider proof of age at the other end? Is he aware that confusion often results when legislation and regulations rely on proof of age, as happens in many instances? Is it not time for the Government to lead the debate on a national proof of age card?
Lord Filkin: What an interesting question, my Lords. It seems almost an invitation to join the debate on identity cards, which I hesitate to do. I shall reflect and correspond on the matter.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, given the Minister's previous statement, does he agree that many people, including many noble Lords, require glasses at a much younger age than 70? Cannot eyesight deteriorate at any time in life? Moreover, are not other qualifications, such as a person's reaction speed, necessary to be competent to drive? Would it not be sensible for the Government to consider requiring a declaration and a test proving competence to drive every 10 years during adulthood?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that eyesight deterioration does not occur only at 70 but at a variety of ages. However, from the late 40s onwards most of us suffer some form of eyesight deterioration. It is also a fact that older drivers tend to have slower reaction speeds in a number of respects. Those facts are matched to some extent by the fact that, as noble Lords well know, older people have considerably greater judgment and experience. Older people are also inclined to be more cautious about exposing themselves to driving risks. They tend largely to avoid night-time, rush hour, winter or wet weather driving. Older drivers therefore make some fairly sensible behavioural adjustments to reduce risk.
944
The Government do not support a 10-yearly test. We do not believe that the benefits that might be gained by such a process justify the amount of work and bureaucracy involved or the costs that would be imposed on individuals and the Government.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister say what consideration is being given to compulsory retraining, as opposed to re-testing, for errant drivers?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I think that that is available at the moment. I am sure that it is strongly encouraged in appropriate circumstances.

Beef Imports: Argentina
3.23 p.m.
Lord Rotherwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the decision of the European Union Farming Commissioner to permit an increase in imports of Argentinean beef to the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the European Commission is expected to make proposals shortly to increase Argentina's entitlement to export high-quality beef to the EU at a reduced tariff. This would apply for one year only. The Government will examine the details of the proposal when it emerges.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I should also like to declare that, although I am a farmer, I am not a beef producer. Is the Minister aware that the Office International des Epizooties does not classify Argentina as a foot and mouth-free country? Can he say whether all meat imported from Argentina comes from vaccinated cows? Furthermore, can he say whether these extra imports will increase the underlying decline in British beef production? Last year, for example, total beef imports to the United Kingdom represented 22 per cent of the total beef consumed in this country, whereas it is estimated that, this year, that figure will increase to 37 per cent.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the quantity side, the total amount which the Commission is likely to propose is 10,000 additional tonnes of high-quality beef. As the EU consumes 8 million tonnes of beef annually, the increase is not likely significantly to distort the EU market or the UK market—which currently takes slightly less than one-third of Argentinean imports.
On the health side, the EU believes that all Argentina's provinces are about to be clear of foot and mouth; all but one province is clear. The north of Argentina is clear with vaccination, and the south is clear without vaccination. In practice, however, all exports from Argentina are governed by the rules

945
applying to vaccinated meat; in other words, all beef has to he deboned and mature. Therefore, the judgment of the EU—and undoubtedly subsequently of the OIE—is that Argentina will soon be FMD free.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, if the EU should agree to import Argentinean beef, will the British consumer be able to distinguish that beef from British beef? Will it be very clearly labelled? Will we have any choice as to whether we buy it or not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, whether consumers buy it in the shops is a matter for them. If it is allowable in the EU, subject to all these rules, clearly it can be in the shops and the British consumer can buy it. Compared with the historical situation, British consumers are consuming a relatively small amount of Argentinean beef. As the noble Countess will know, most beef is labelled in the shops by country of origin, although that is not a mandatory requirement.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, is not the Argentine economy in a very serious—possibly disastrous—state, with unemployment at 18 per cent and increasing and the peso in freefall? The Argentine economy is forecast to contract by 8 per cent this year. In such circumstances, does not the EU—traditionally Argentina's largest overall trading partner—have some responsibility to help avoid a possible tragedy for the global economy and a certain catastrophe for the South American economy? Is it therefore not entirely reasonable to consider Mr. Fischler's proposal as a means of providing moderate but highly desirable assistance to the Argentine economy?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. That is the precise reason why Commissioner Fischler has made the proposal, which is part of a much wider approach in the EU and the IMF and in the discussions in Latin America. My noble friend Lady Symons has been in discussions in Latin America on general help for Argentina on both the aid and the trade sides. The proposal is but one small part of that approach.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is my noble friend able to say to what extent our beef exports to the EU have declined since the problems of BSE arose, and tell us which countries have provided beef to the European Union to fill that gap?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, beef exports are currently very low because of the BSE restrictions. As noble Lords know, the overall restrictions have been lifted—despite the fact that we have had some difficulty with our French friends in these matters. Nevertheless, exports are subject to very tight regulation. As only a small proportion of British beef can meet those regulations, exports to the EU are necessarily very low and there is a substantial gap. Beef to fill that gap has been found within the EU itself, but there have also been imports from third countries. There has not,
946
however, been a significant increase in imports from Argentina. Indeed, in the past five years, overall imports from Argentina to the EU have decreased.
Earl Peel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, despite his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the Commissioner would be better placed dealing with the illegal position that the French are taking in the export of British beef to that country? Will he please tell us what the Government and the Commission will do to ensure that this illegality stops?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the House knows, the continued ban on British beef by the French was opposed by the European Court of Justice. The European Commission—not the British Government—took the case. As the noble Earl implies, the next move lies, therefore, with the European Commission. Commissioner Byrne will deal with it rather than Commissioner Fischler, who looks after the agriculture policy. Nevertheless, the ball is in the Commission's court and we shall press the Commission to take action now that it has given the French a few months to comply with the court's decision.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister give the House the total tonnage of British meat that is now exported, the total tonnage of British meat that is now imported, and the percentage of the latter which depends on vaccination for its good health?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I can. I have already indicated the situation with regard to British beef. In view of the FMD epidemic, it has not been possible to export British lamb and British pork during the past year. Therefore, we do not have up-to-date figures. I shall supply the noble Lord with the figures relating to imports that are subject to vaccination procedures.

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
3.31 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, pursuant to Standing Order 51, the following Lords be appointed to join with a committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:

L. Acton,

L. Brightman,

L. Campbell of Alloway,

L. Christopher,

V. Colville of Culross,

E. Dundee,

B. Fookes,

L. Hobhouse of Woodborough,

L. Janner of Braunstone,

B. Mallalieu,

L. Phillips of Sudbury,

L. Razzall;

947
That the committee have the power to agree with the committee of the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time be printed and, if the committee think fit, be delivered out; and
That a message be sent to the Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet on Tuesday 30th April at half-past four o'clock.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, while supporting the Motion, I seek the assistance of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on two matters. First, consolidation is vital to the better understanding and to the making for clarity of our statute law, but in recent years there has been too little. Therefore, I ask the noble and learned Lord to invite the committee to do more consolidation than has been undertaken in recent years.
My second point is in relation to the penultimate phrase of the Motion. It says:
"That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time be printed and, if the committee think fit, be delivered out".
I may be ignorant, but I have not heard that phrase used in an official document in my 56 years in Parliament. It has a grammatical defect. At least, a few years ago, I was taught that one does not put a preposition after a verb in a phrase. If that could be altered, this Motion would be phrased in better English.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I entirely agree that consolidation Bills are vital for clarity. I know that sometimes it is said that there is too little consolidation. The noble Lord will recall that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has asked questions on this subject from time to time. Although the Government believe in the importance of consolidation legislation, all governments have to give priority to the primary legislation that is required to give effect to the policies under which they were elected.
I too was brought up in the belief that sentences should not end with a preposition, but the word to which the noble Lord refers is in the middle of a sentence and before a semi-colon.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill consolidates the legislation on European parliamentary elections, which currently consists of
948
three Acts—the European Parliamentary Elections Acts of 1978, 1993 and 1999—and a number of provisions in other legislation.
A similar consolidation Bill was introduced in the last Parliament, but it fell for lack of time because it was held up by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which made relevant amendments to the legislation that was being consolidated. Your Lordships may recall that that consolidation Bill received your Lordships' support. The opportunity has been taken to make one or two changes to the first Bill, in order to take account of subsequent legislation and to incorporate an amendment made to that Bill by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
The Bill will make it easier to follow the legislation on this subject. I am aware that there are differences of opinion on the substance of the law on elections to the European Parliament, but this consolidation Bill is not the place to debate them. The Bill is simply intended to make the existing statute book clearer.
I offer my thanks to the Law Commission and to Parliamentary Counsel for all that they do in this valuable work.
If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a second reading, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. We all support consolidation of the patchwork of the statute book. It is important legal housekeeping, but it offers no opportunities for spin doctors and so it has had a low priority under this Government. Their record on the matter is pretty feeble. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton.
Any consolidation measure starts with the same welcome as the sinner that repenteth. But this rarity makes it all the more interesting to ponder why this particular part of the law has been singled out for consolidation now. I understand the background and that the Lord Chancellor has just set out the earlier efforts to consolidate this part of the law, but I have two questions for him.
The first concerns further pending legislation on this subject. I understand that Mr Peter Hain, the Minister for Europe, has announced that on behalf of the Government he has agreed in Brussels—just before this Bill was brought forward for debate—that the Government will shortly promote more legislation on European parliamentary elections.
We know from Mr Hain that that will include making dual membership of this Parliament and the European Parliament illegal. That is the so-called dual mandate. I understand that Members of this House or another place will no longer be able to sit in the European Parliament. Am I right in assuming that that can be done only by amending Clause 10 of this Bill, as that clause firmly provides the exact opposite of what Mr Hain has promised to achieve?

949
Mr Hain says that he has agreed that this change in European election law and other changes, about which I have no information, will be ratified by the Government by the end of this year. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could tell the House what changes are proposed to this legislation in order to fulfil Mr Hain's promise to our European partners and what timescale the Government propose for that legislation. Given the history of the matter, I believe that the Joint Committee will probably want to know the answer to that.
My second question concerns the status of the new law. As we know, the 1999 Act is regarded by some lawyers as a legally dubious Act of Parliament because its passage relied on what is claimed to be the invalid Parliament Act 1949. This view is held by, among other distinguished lawyers, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. He brought forward legislation on the subject not long ago. I realise that the Government and others do not agree with that view. I do not want to enter into that controversy today. Apart from anything else, I am not qualified to do so. There are, after all, two respectable legal views held on matters every day of the week in the courts and, generally speaking, half the laws are proved wrong every day. But this issue has not been tested.
My question is whether this potential flaw in the 1999 legislation is carried through into the new legislation or is cancelled out by this new Bill. Can this consolidation Bill, if properly passed into law, give a greater legitimacy to the underlying legislation than it currently has? It would seem wrong for such a purpose to be achieved by means of a consolidation Bill with its special procedures. Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tell us whether the Bill does launder the 1999 Act in this way? One wonders whether that might be the reason that the Bill is before us now. Is it really a legal laundry Bill?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord gave me no notice of either of those points which are of considerable detail. I hesitate always to give advice on any point of law, particularly since the noble Lord recognises that the law can sometimes be difficult, without attending closely to the detail of the point. I shall write to the noble Lord on the first point.
I am, however, entirely satisfied that, even if a further amendment was required, consolidation is still desirable so that there can be a clear base from which people can work when future changes arise. But I am far from saying that any need for a future amendment will arise. I shall write to the noble Lord on the subject.
The status of the 1999 legislation is in my view undoubted. The Bill neither adds to it nor subtracts from it.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.

Zimbabwe
3.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission I should like to make a statement on Zimbabwe.
"Yesterday Robert Mugabe was declared the official winner of the presidential election. This result should surprise no one. ZANU-PF has been bent for months on achieving precisely this outcome, by any means and at all costs.
"The Zimbabwean Government have subjected their electorate to two years of violence and intimidation. They have harassed opposition candidates and supporters, manipulated the voters' roll and restricted access to polling stations. They have exploited every instrument of the state to distort the outcome of the election —military, police, media, youth militias and the bureaucracy.
"ZANU-PF has also done its utmost to conceal the extent of its violence and malpractice from the eyes of the world. It excluded European Union election observers, monopolised domestic TV and radio and restricted international media organisations, including the BBC. None of those was the action of a party confident of its ability to win a free and fair election.
"These elections can only be judged by agreed international standards, not least the declaration signed by Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare itself in 1991. In December of last year, on the basis of evidence already available the Commonwealth concluded that,
'the situation in Zimbabwe constitutes a serious and persistent violation of the Commonwealth's fundamental political values and the rule of law'.
That conclusion was reinforced in January and again a week before the polls closed. And the situation got worse during the election itself.
"A key yardstick by which any electoral process must be judged is impartial electoral administration. There was nothing impartial about the process in Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe staffed Zimbabwe's electoral supervisory commission with partisan army officers. The issue of the names of who could

951
and could not vote was not settled until just days before the election, amid allegations of fraudulent malpractice.
"During the election itself the electoral commission reduced the number of polling booths in urban areas in order to restrict the opposition vote. In many rural areas, the opposition say their polling agents and monitors were prevented from inspecting ballot boxes before voting started. Others were not allowed inside polling stations. Many opposition workers say they were abducted, detained or arrested by supporters of the ruling party or the security forces.
"I have today received the preliminary report of the Commonwealth observer group. It says:
'The violence and intimidation created a climate of fear and suspicion'.
It says:
'Thousands of Zimbabwean citizens were disenfranchised'.
It says there was,
'a systematic campaign of intimidation'.
It concludes:
'The conditions in Zimbabwe did not adequately allow for a free expression of will by the electors'.
I will be placing this report in the Library of the House as well as the full text of the Southern Africa Development Community parliamentary forum report, which was equally damning. The SADC delegation concluded that the,
'election was neither free nor fair'.
Zimbabweans have plainly been denied their fundamental right to choose by whom they are to be governed. I am sure I speak for the whole House in expressing my huge admiration for the people of Zimbabwe whose faith in democracy was so strong that they queued for days, and in the face of police violence, to vote—in some cases queued for days, only to be denied the right to vote. They are true democrats. They deserve better.
"Zimbabwe was until recently the pride of Africa, the breadbasket of the continent. But Robert Mugabe's disastrous economic policies have already severely damaged his own country. Now there is 70 per cent unemployment, 112 per cent inflation, and a decline last year in GDP of 10 per cent. This year is expected to be the same.
"The failure of the electoral process in Zimbabwe is a tragedy not just for Zimbabwe but for the people of southern Africa as a whole. The South African rand has depreciated by 40 per cent in the last year. The people of southern Africa deserve better too. Their governments will inevitably bear most of the responsibility for helping the region to recover. We shall continue to work with them in this task.
"The House will know that the European Union decided on 18th February to impose sanctions targeted against the leadership of ZANU-PF. These include a travel ban, an assets freeze and a ban on arms sales. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and I will be travelling to Barcelona this
952
afternoon where we will review the position with our European partners at the EU summit to be held in that city.
"We are also working closely with the US Government who have already announced a travel ban on the ZANU-PF leadership and are considering a possible broadening of sanctions along the lines of those which the EU has already enforced. We will continue to work closely with them, our G8 and SADC partners.
"The House will know that Her Majesty's Government took the view on the evidence available at the new year that Zimbabwe should be suspended from the Commonwealth. What has happened since has simply confirmed that judgment. In the event— and we regret this—Commonwealth governments decided not to follow that course of action. They appointed a troika of South Africa, Nigeria and Australia to decide on Zimbabwe's status in the Commonwealth. We await their conclusions in light of the strongly worded Commonwealth observers report to which I have already drawn the attention of the House and of the more detailed conclusions that the report promises.
"It is crucial that we and the international community stand by the people of Zimbabwe in the face of the deprivation and hardship heaped on them by their government. We will therefore continue our programme of humanitarian assistance and our assistance in the fight against HIV/AIDs. But I can tell the House today that we will continue to oppose any access by Zimbabwe to international financial resources until a more representative government is in place.
"Robert Mugabe may claim to have won this election but the people of Zimbabwe have lost. We are faced here with a leader who is determined to ignore the international community, ignore his people and ignore the grave consequences of his actions.
"Change will have to come to Zimbabwe. One day—I hope soon—we shall all look forward to a democratic government of Zimbabwe, acting in the interests of its people and taking its rightful place in a modern Africa.
"There are those who have sought to suggest that this is a conflict between Africa and the West, black against white or the south against the north. I reject that totally. At its heart, this is a matter of universal principle—of the right of people freely to determine their own future. It is that principle which has been flouted in Zimbabwe, and all democrats should speak with one voice in condemning what has taken place".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that important and sombre Statement. As I said at the beginning of last week's debate on Zimbabwe, we on these Benches view the situation that has emerged with

953
sadness and anger. We view it with sadness because we see a great and prosperous country destroyed and democracy clearly brought into contempt. I fully endorse the noble Baroness's tribute to the stamina and courage of the people of Zimbabwe, who stood in long queues for many hours, intimidated and challenged, to make their democratic choice—which many of them were then denied.
We feel sadness because the election has now officially been recognised as seriously flawed and the Commonwealth, in which I always believe strongly, has been hideously tarnished. We feel sadness also because European Union officials have been humiliated, SADC standards have been flouted in almost every respect and the whole scene for southern Africa has been darkened.
We are angry because all that was utterly predictable, and was predicted more than two years ago. There were repeated warnings to the Government and others that we were heading towards a tragedy. The Government now use firm and tough language, which I respect—but it is late, late, late. The truth is that the quiet dialogue, which we said would not work, has been an utter failure.
For Zimbabwe, there is probably worse to come. There is a strong whiff of the police state as gangs and armed forces hunt down defeated political opponents, then harass, arrest and imprison them—and worse. Predictable is the mealy-mouthed response from some African states, which will lead to validation and approval of what has happened from the appointed group of three. Predictable also is that the next speech from the tyrant Mugabe will probably be on the lines of reconciliation and sweet talk—about getting together and forgetting the past. That will go on even while his henchmen are closing down freedom and promoting the worst kinds of racism and hate as they did—people forget this—on a hideous scale in 1983.
What is to be done? Having let things drift so far, what will the British Government contribute to rescue the situation? First, there must be a coalition formed of the determined democracies, including the United States of America, Denmark, New Zealand and some of the wiser African and Asian leaders. That coalition should come together and speak with one voice. It should seek to include— the most difficult task of all—a dithering South Africa whose leadership does not yet seem fully to understand the dangers that the Zimbabwe situation now threatens for that great country. The sooner South Africa understands those dangers and uses its influence, the better.
Secondly, all possible international pressure, including financial and travel restrictions, should be put on Mugabe and his cronies. I was glad to learn that some of that is going forward, although hearing again the words "review" and "consider" fills me with unease.
Thirdly, fresh elections should be demanded. The President of the United States does not recognise the latest elections. I would like to hear the same words from our Government. We believe that Zimbabwe
954
should be suspended from the Commonwealth until there are new elections and a representative government in place.
The Prime Minister's words have been well flown on two fine wings. He is quoted as saying:
"The state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world. But if the world as a community focused on it, we could heal it And if we don't, it will become deeper and angrier".
He was right. And the Commonwealth is right in saying that its core principle is that,
"people should be free to exercise their life choices and pursue their lawful engagements without fear of intimidation, arbitrary arrest or loss of their civil rights".
We need not more fine-spun words and feebleness. We have words and rhetoric aplenty. We need principled and focused action, which is what we now expect from the Government.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in welcoming the Statement it would be appropriate for the House to recognise the enormous efforts to mediate made by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, in the run-up to the Zimbabwe elections. No doubt she will be much concerned with the situation over the coming weeks and months.
What happens now in terms of British policy towards refugees and the opposition? I refer not only to those whose grandparents were born in the United Kingdom but all those people, black or white, who have shown so much courage in attempting to conduct a democratic election against overwhelming pressures from the Mugabe regime. It is important that we do not abandon those people and take only those who are white or who are, without question, entitled to residence in the United Kingdom.
There is also a broader Africa question and a large question about the future of the Commonwealth. The Statement contains some strong language about the Commonwealth's fundamental values and universal principles. One of the reasons other Commonwealth African governments have not been strongly on our side is that they do not entirely share those universal principles or fundamental values, which is part of a broader problem. Not many African states have successfully had democratic changes of government in the past 10 to 15 years—and not many of those are Commonwealth member states.
What does that mean for the future of the Commonwealth? Are we confident that in using such broad and idealistic language as in the Statement, we can nevertheless hold the Commonwealth together? Or must we recognise that we may be facing a breach or further weakening of the Commonwealth as an institution?
Chaos in Zimbabwe—probably involving famine and certainly involving refugees flowing into South Africa, Mozambique and other border states—will add to chaos in a region in which the Congo and Zaire are in considerable disorder, Angola is not fully pacified and there are severe problems in Rwanda. Other states have also been involved in the Congo.

955
The American Government are now preoccupied with the problems of west and central Asia. The previous American administration made it clear that they thought Africa a problem for the Europeans to deal with, while the Middle East and Eurasia were areas in which the United States led. It is important that the British Government try to focus the attention of other states within the EU and at the United Nations on the long-term problems for the world of weak states in Africa and how we rebuild not only their economies but their societies and administrations.
4 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, talked about feeling sadness and anger. We all share those sentiments, although I could probably add frustration. I must admit to the House that I personally feel a great deal of frustration, having worked on these issues for many months.
I strongly disagree with the noble Lord that our policy has been an utter failure. I considered his proposals and listened carefully to those made on Zimbabwe during the past few weeks by the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs in another place. All that the noble Lord talked about today and what his right honourable friend suggested in another place is action that we have taken.
We have built an international consensus. There has been strong condemnation from the European Union, leading to targeted sanctions. Strong statements have been made by the Commonwealth ministerial action group. We were disappointed that we were unable to get Zimbabwe suspended from the Commonwealth, but we were entirely realistic about that, because the Commonwealth is an organisation of 54 countries that operates by consensus. We established a mechanism to deal with the situation if the observers' report stated that the election was flawed; we must now look to the troika.
We achieved unanimity in the European Union, which I must say, with respect to the noble Lord, would have been extremely difficult for his party if it had been in power. My right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister and I have all spoken to colleagues not only in southern Africa but across Africa about these issues and we shall continue to do so. Let us not forget that the blame here lies with Robert Mugabe. We are talking about a man and a party who care nothing for their own people. The House should not forget that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his kind remarks about me. He asked what will now happen to refugees and those seeking asylum in the United Kingdom. Noble Lords will know that on 15th January, taking account of public concern, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary suspended removals until after the presidential election. I can tell the House that the Home Office has no immediate plans to recommence removals.
The noble Lord then asked two related questions about the fundamental values of the Commonwealth and went on to raise some wider questions about what
956
is now happening in Africa. I do not entirely share the noble Lord's views about democratic changes in Africa, because during the past two years there have been examples such as Ghana—and we hope for a peaceful transition in Sierra Leone in May. But I recognise that the shift towards democracy is fragile and vulnerable and I entirely agree that we must support those emerging democracies. Within the Commonwealth context, it is important that we talk about our shared values and beliefs. For too long, we have all assumed that those values are shared because we sign up to them. We must tackle the fact that we approach them in quite different ways. One way to do so is through the process emerging through the New Partnership for Africa's Development. The fact that within that process is a recognition that African leaders and governments must tackle issues of political and economic governance is a glimmer of hope.
I entirely agree with the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about working with colleagues in the United States and other European Union countries on the issue of weak stakes, in particular, but more generally on the impact of conflict in Africa. The United States has made clear that its priority in Africa is Sudan and we hope to work closely in resolving the conflict there. Of course, we shall do all we can to ensure that the policies that we are promoting in Africa not only through the New Partnership for Africa's Development but through our bilateral relations with African countries are shared by European Union colleagues. The noble Lord will know that recently my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary visited the Great Lakes with his French counterpart.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the credentials of the Opposition would be purer if they had been more consistent about Africa and its policies—especially the former apartheid regime in South Africa? Would it not be good if the invigilators could be brought together to consider the evidence of the impropriety that has been suggested—in my view, rightly? We heard today on the BBC the view of some observers that the way in which the election had been conducted was fair. I do not share that view, but will my noble friend consider calling them together so that they can take a joint view on the matter?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend's opening remarks. With respect to his question about bringing the observers together, we considered that during the run-up to the election, but it has been made difficult by the fact that the European Union delegation had to leave Zimbabwe. Strong statements have been made by the SADC parliamentary forum delegation and the Commonwealth observer team, but noble Lords will know that the South African observer team, for example, judged the election result legitimate. Given

957
the emerging differences among different observer groups, it would now be very difficult to bring them together.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the Statement referred to the Harare declaration of 1991. The noble Baroness also referred to the mechanism established at the recent conference for deciding the issue. Despite the hopeful comment in the Statement about awaiting the conclusions of the troika, are we not now in a total mess? On 6th June, the noble Baroness and the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that the decision is to be taken by the troika, with no need to refer it to the Commonwealth heads of government. The leaders of Nigeria and the South Africa have stated clearly that they believe that the election is valid. What on earth are we now to do to rescue the Commonwealth from what appears to be a disastrous situation?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the troika was mandated by the Commonwealth Heads of Government to make a decision on the basis of the Commonwealth observers' report. I quoted extensively from that report. That interim report will be placed in the Library of the House. It is our view that the evidence in that report is clear but we have to await the outcome of the judgment of the troika.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I welcome the Statement made by my noble friend Lady Amos and pay tribute to her work. Does my noble friend agree with those of us who have witnessed two elections in South Africa—the joyous people turning out to vote, the enormous lengths to which the authorities went to ensure that people did vote with ballot places open until two or three in the morning, an extension of days, and every effort made to promote democracy—that in contrast the shameful procedures in Zimbabwe bring the whole of southern Africa into disrepute? Will my noble friend take every opportunity to make sure that President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa is involved in early discussions? If the Commonwealth is not to disintegrate entirely and if Zimbabwe is not to slide into utter chaos, it is clear that this matter will have to be resolved in southern Africa. Will the Minister ensure, therefore, that President Mbeki and the presidents of Angola and elsewhere are engaged in discussions at the earliest opportunity?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks. I agree with him that we need to work closely with President Mbeki and other leaders in southern Africa. Noble Lords will agree that President Mbeki carries a heavy burden. The prosperity of South Africa is affected by what is happening in Zimbabwe, but so is the prosperity of the whole region. President Mbeki has played a leading role in NePAD. He is keen to ensure that the reputation of Africa as a whole is not blighted by what is going on in Zimbabwe. I agree with my noble friend that early discussions with the South Africans are critical.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister three questions. First, I assume
958
and hope that an extensive aid programme will need to be carried out, whether within Zimbabwe or the countries around it. I assume that that will be a general issue within the UN, the EU and ourselves. In Sudan, the Government took over the aid and distributed it themselves for a while on their own terms. That was accepted for a time. Can we be sure that any aid mounted is monitored so that it is not possible for the Zanu-PF to use aid to strengthen further its hold and to deprive the most needy?
Secondly, we have heard nothing about what is happening in the UN. I hope that that is an area where we shall be able to speak to Africans outside the context of the Commonwealth. Because of the split that is developing in the Commonwealth, that may be important.
Finally, on a purely housekeeping point, I hope that the High Commission in Zimbabwe is being considerably strengthened. It will be extremely important to have immediate, detailed and reliable knowledge of what is happening as our policies are defined.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the focus of any aid to Zimbabwe would be humanitarian assistance principally in relation to food aid. For example, we are working with the World Food Programme. Since last year we have been engaged in a supplementary feeding programme in Zimbabwe. The other two aspects of our aid programme relate to HIV/AIDS and rural development, the bulk of which is through NGOs. The noble Baroness will know that we monitor all our aid programmes because we wish to ensure that the aid goes precisely to the targets that we have identified.
We have been in constant contact with the UN Secretary-General. The noble Baroness will know that before and since the elections he has appealed for calm. We shall continue to engage with the UN. Prior to the elections, the UNDP considered the land reform programme in Zimbabwe. Its view was that it could not proceed further given the situation on the ground.
The noble Baroness's third point gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to our staff in the High Commission in Zimbabwe who have done a very good job indeed. I spoke to them recently. They already give us detailed and reliable information about what is happening on the ground and I am sure they will continue to do so.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the present policy whereby asylum seekers are not returned to Zimbabwe will continue in place unless or until Parliament is informed to the contrary?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, on 15th January the Home Secretary suspended removals. The Home Office has no immediate plans to commence removals. I am sure that we shall inform Parliament at the appropriate time.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, the entire House will sympathise with the Minister for having to bear such

959
grievous news from southern Africa, particularly as it reinforces the compelling article in The Times today by the noble Lord, Lord Renwick.
How will the policy of sanctions now be viewed? Is it not likely that the background for sanctions will be coloured by the action of the South African Government and other governments in southern Africa? Can we be reassured that we shall not degenerate into a policy of gesture which will have no meaning but will enable Mugabe to demonstrate his invulnerability to such action, even if it means that we have to discontinue sanctions?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the European Union has moved to targeted sanctions: a travel ban, an assets freeze and a ban on the sale of military equipment. On the latter, it follows the United Kingdom's action in 2000. The United States has imposed a travel ban. It has made it clear that given the results of the election it will consider strengthening those areas. We have made clear that we shall not move to broader economic sanctions which we think will hurt the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. We want sanctions which are targeted on the elite.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that some of the British press have not given the correct picture of the opposition of many of the democratic governments of Africa to the Mugabe victory? For instance, The Times today states that the observers from the Southern African Development Community concluded that the poll was substantially free and fair, which is absolutely not the case as the Independent reported. The Southern African Development Community observers were all parliamentarians. As my noble friend's Statement says, also the Commonwealth observers found that the election was flawed. Is it not right that the British press should give credit to those African governments who regard this as an African problem and are making fair comment about it?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's comments. It is important that the press report as accurately as possible. That is even more important with regard to the SADC Parliamentary Forum report.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I shall take up the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside. The reports of the two observer groups to which the Minister referred—the Commonwealth observers and the SADC observers—are important and surprising, given that the leaders of so many African countries have said that the election was legitimate.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, that it is important to engage with, in particular, President Mbeki and President Obasanjo, who is the other African member of the troika, which also includes Prime Minister Howard of Australia. They have both expressed the view that the election
960
was legitimate, or words to that effect. We should urge on those leaders, in whatever manner may be most effective, the importance of their voting for stern measures against Zimbabwe. The future of the Commonwealth is at stake, and, if the troika does not support such measures, the Commonwealth will be badly damaged.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is important that I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that the credibility of the Commonwealth is a matter that has constantly been raised in this context. It is important that we all adhere to the principles that underlie membership of the Commonwealth and ensure that they are continued. I remind the House that the Commonwealth observers' team is led by a Nigerian.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the determined way in which she has handled the matter. Of course, the result is extremely disappointing.
Can the Minister confirm that we need unanimity in the Commonwealth before any action can be taken? Secondly, will she, with others, renew approaches to the Government of Zimbabwe to remove the restrictions on the ability of the BBC to report events in that country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that, as an organisation, the Commonwealth operates by consensus. We have urged the Government of Zimbabwe to lift the restrictions on the BBC and will continue to do so in relation not only to the BBC but to other media organisations. We think that freedom of expression is a fundamental tenet of democracy.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I welcome the reports of the attitude of the Home Office to the removal of people to Zimbabwe at present. However, there has been considerable concern that people from Zimbabwe—black people—have been subjected to immediate detention on arrival here, in contrast to most asylum seekers, who are not detained.
In view of the fact that people will not be returned for the time being, will the Minister have words with her colleagues in the Home Office to end the process through which people from Zimbabwe are invariably detained on arrival? Will she also take on board the concern that some people who are not being returned at the moment are, nevertheless, still being detained?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are in constant dialogue with colleagues in the Home Office. I will take on board the points made by the noble Lord and put them to the Home Office.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords—
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords—
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, noble Lords on the Cross-Benches wanted to intervene and have not yet done so.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Minister referred a moment ago to the freezing by the European Union of

961
Mr Mugabe's assets. Have Her Majesty's Government any knowledge of exactly where the bulk of Mr Mugabe's assets are stashed away?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord any detailed information in answer to that question. However, if there is anything that I can put in writing to the noble Lord, I shall happily do so.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, to clarify totally matters, particularly in the light of the American decision, can the Minister confirm whether we will recognise Mr Mugabe's apparent victory—yes or no?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thought that I had made it absolutely clear in the Statement that we did not recognise the result or its legitimacy.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with great respect, I must say that we recognise states, not governments. There is no question of not recognising the state of Zimbabwe. It is there, and we have recognised it for years.
I shall return to the election. Something that gives rise to immense frustration on all sides is how little leverage we—the United Kingdom—have. The only way in which we can influence the position is to try to persuade the countries that have influence and leverage ill Harare to begin to exercise it. The key to that will be the South African Government. I hope that the Government here will quickly, immediately and vigorously try to mobilise a body of opinion that might have some effect on the attitude of the South African Government. Short of that, Mr Mugabe will not be impressed by expulsion or suspension from the Commonwealth or sanctions on some parts of his regime. He may be impressed by economic leverage from South Africa.
It is ironic that, when Ian Smith was in charge in what was then Rhodesia, it was pressure from South Africa that, in the end, persuaded him that there should be a change of regime. I hope that history will repeat itself.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we must persuade the countries with leverage to exercise it. That has been the cornerstone of our policy, and it is the reason why we have sought to work closely with SADC colleagues on the matter. Since the election, we have, of course, been in touch with colleagues in South Africa, for example, and we will continue to work closely with them and other governments in the SADC region and with other countries throughout Africa. The leverage must come from within Africa.

Banking Services: Competition Commission Report
4.27 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement
962
made in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on banks competition. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, in presenting the Competition Commission's report on the supply of banking services to small and medium-sized enterprises—my and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's response to it—our starting point and guiding objective is our belief in competition as the spur to efficiency, innovation and competitiveness.
"It is underpinned by our statement in July that, just as in the last Parliament it was right to make monetary decisions independent of political influence under an independent authority— —first de facto and then by law—so too it is right to make competition decisions—de facto and then de jure— independent of political interference, with government accepting the decisions of independent competition authorities.
"Having already moved de facto to such a regime in the way we handle merger cases, in the forthcoming Enterprise Bill we will legislate to make decisions on mergers and complex monopolies independent.
"There are over 3.5 million small businesses in the UK, representing 55 per cent of jobs, 50 per cent of all business turnover and £1 trillion of economic activity a year. The access to finance and the quality of service they receive from banks are critically important to their—and the British economy's productivity and prosperity.
"So when the Cruickshank review of banking services found little prospect of effective competition emerging in the small business market, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I referred small business banking to the Competition Commission for a full investigation. Its report is published and laid before the House today.
"Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, there are three necessary tests, all of which must be met before it can be concluded that there is a complex monopoly operating that is harmful to the public interest.
"The first test is that at least a quarter of the services under consideration must be supplied by a group of persons. The commission found that the eight largest clearing banks supplied at least a quarter of the banking services in 'the UK, with the four largest, in fact, providing 86 per cent of services, and that this degree of concentration had changed little over the past 10 years.
"The second test is that this group of persons must be found to conduct its affairs,
'as in any way to prevent, restrict or distort competition'.
"And, finally, the third test is that the restriction or distortion of competition caused by the complex monopoly must be shown to operate against the public interest.
"Let me set out the Competition Commission's findings. First, it finds that these banks had failed to compete on price by: refusing to pay interest on

963
current accounts and only paying low rates of interest on smaller, short-term deposit accounts; and by maintaining a structure of charges not related to costs.
"Secondly, it finds that these banks had reduced choice and the ability of small businesses to make savings on bank charges by: restricting small businesses to business rather than personal bank accounts; failing to inform small businesses about possible benefits from set off and sweep facilities which allow for credit balances in one account to be set off against debit balances in another; and requiring small businesses wanting a deposit account or a loan to also hold a current account.
"Thirdly, it finds that these banks had made it hard for small businesses to compare the deals available from different banks by: failing to provide small businesses with a breakdown of interest charges on their current account; and offering discounts only to selected customers.
"Fourthly, it finds that these banks had made it more difficult and expensive for new entrants and alternative suppliers to attract small businesses by: confining free banking to business start-ups and to small businesses who had moved from another bank; and negotiating reduced charges for small businesses who were likely to switch banks.
"The Competition Commission concludes that all eight of the largest clearing banks in the UK were found to be carrying out one or more of those practices which operated against the public interest.
"Moreover, the Competition Commission finds that,
'the average return on equity between 1998 and 2000 is 36 per cent compared with an estimated cost of equity of about 15 per cent. We, however, recognised that a number of adjustments should be made to these figures … despite the cautious approach we have adopted to a number of those factors, we have concluded that the four largest clearing groups … are together charging excessive prices … and therefore making excessive profits in England and Wales of about £725 million a year over the last three years with adverse effects on SMEs'.
"Profits are absolutely central to the effective and efficient working of a market economy. They are the engine in the dynamic process of competition, innovation and meeting needs of consumers. Where high profits are due to relative efficiency rather than monopoly—as the Competition Commission found in the case of Northern Bank—the question of whether high profits are against the public interest does not arise.
"Where high profits are derived from an absence of competition or through a complex monopoly situation, and are earned by overcharging customers, the effectiveness of the market is reduced. Indeed as the Competition Commission observed: where the consumers concerned—in this case small and medium sized companies—are themselves operating in highly competitive markets, the adverse effects on the public interest are exacerbated.
964
"Because practices carried out by the eight main clearing banks, and the overcharging by the four largest in England and Wales, were found to operate against the public interest, the Competition Commission recommend that all eight clearing banks identified make a number of changes to their practices to help promote competition in this market, including: being required to facilitate the switching of accounts; providing, if requested by a small or medium enterprise, a portable credit history; making the charges for their services more transparent; investigating the feasibility, costs and benefits of a national scheme for sharing branches; and extending the BBA Business Banking Code.
"Taken together, the Competition Commission states that these remedies along with others it proposes would help promote greater competition in banking services.
"The Competition Commission wants,
'a decisive and significant shift towards what [they] consider to be competitive levels',
because, as it states,
'competition and entry has to date not been effective in reducing excess profits and prices, nor is the immediate prospect of new entry in [their] view sufficient to reduce excess profits and prices in a reasonable time period'.
It recommends a further transitional remedy requiring the four largest banks operating current accounts in England and Wales, where evidence of excessive charges were found, to offer all small businesses one of three possible options: a current account that pays interest of at least the Bank of England base rate minus 2.5 per cent; or a current account free of money transmission charges; or a choice between the two.
"The Competition Commission concludes that since certain current banking practices have operated against the public interest and lead to small businesses paying more than they should for services, it would be wrong to let the situation continue for several more years until the behavioural remedies to promote competition took effect.
"From our starting point—our belief in competition as the spur to efficiency—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have considered the Competition Commission's report carefully. We have examined the recommendations and the remedies proposed to promote competition, encourage new banking suppliers to enter the market and directly address the lack of choice and information.
"Until the competition authorities are fully independent, the Government have legal responsibility for decisions on complex monopoly cases. And in preparing the Government's response we have sought and received additional advice on the report's technical analysis and recommendations from independent experts.
"The advice of the Director-General of Fair Trading—published today—agrees with the Competition Commission that the limited degree,

965
and difficulty, of switching bank accounts is a key factor in inhibiting competition in the SME banking market. In his advice, that I am also publishing today, Sir Bryan Carsberg, former Chairman of the International Accounting Standards Board and ex-Director-General of Fair Trading, concluded that,
'the framework adopted by the Commission is sound and would be accepted as appropriate by most independent experts'.
"Like the Competition Commission, we recognise that to be robust and play their key role in the economy, it is necessary and desirable for banks, at points in the economic cycle, to make higher than average profits. But while we are pro profit, we are also pro competition and cannot be on the side of any monopoly, or any other behaviour that unfairly restricts competition in markets.
"The Competition Commission explicitly concludes in this case that practices by banks do operate against the public interest. Having carefully considered its report, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I agree that action must now be taken to promote greater competition.
"First, the Competition Commission recommends that banks be required to facilitate the switching of accounts to enable small businesses to move accounts from one bank to another easily and quickly by completing a substantial percentage of all account switching within five working days; by publishing their performance objectives and efficiency in achieving them; and by imposing no charges for closing accounts. We agree with the commission's recommendation.
"Secondly, the commission recommends that banks be required, if requested by a small business, to provide a portable credit history—a statement of the SME's credit performance—that can be passed to other banks and will improve the prospects for smaller competitors and new entrants into the banking sector. We agree with the commission's recommendation.
"Thirdly, the commission recommends that banks be required to stop 'bundling' services and not impose any requirement on small businesses to hold a current account in order to obtain a loan or deposit account. We agree with the commission's recommendation.
"Fourthly, the Competition Commission recommends that banks be required to make the charges for their services more transparent, by routinely publishing their standard tariff prices for money transmission services and interest paid on current and short-term deposit accounts allowing small businesses easily to compare charges. We agree with the commission's recommendation.
"Fifthly, because the lack of access to a bank branch represented a key barrier to many substantial new competitors entering the market, the Competition Commission recommends banks are required to investigate the feasibility, costs and benefits of a national scheme for sharing branches and publish their findings within a year. We agree with the commission's recommendation.
966
"The Julius report concluded that the principles underlying the voluntary code for banking and mortgages for households should be extended to small businesses. And so the Competition Commission also made a number of other informal suggestions, some of which are incorporated in the new code announced by the British Banking Association last week. Others, including banks improving their procedures for dealing with errors and paying compensation, the Competition Commission recommends should now be added to the code.
"These and other remedies proposed by the Competition Commission are in pursuit of competition and we ask the banks to work with the Director-General of Fair Trading to move the recommendations forward with speed.
"In seeking an earlier and decisive switch towards a better service for small businesses, the commission considered more radical measures including proposals for divestment of both bank branches and SME banking businesses—where banks would either be forced to give over some of their branches or some of their customers to other banks. And they considered a licence fee, an obligatory fund and a windfall tax.
"The Competition Commission rejected these proposals, and we agree with this rejection.
"The Competition Commission recommends a transitional remedy that is not about preventing companies earning high profits, but simply ensuring that they can only do so as a result of a genuine competitive advantage, a remedy that
'imposes no restriction on new entrants … and should not interfere with the natural emergence of desirable competition'.
"So the commission recommends, and we agree, as a transitional measure, that the four largest banks operating current accounts in England and Wales be required to offer any SME either a current account paying interest of at least the Bank of England base rate minus 2.5 per cent; or a current account free of money transmission charges; or a choice between the two. And the Director-General of Fair Trading recommends, and we agree, that we ask him to obtain undertakings from the banks to implement this remedy.
"The commission suggests that all remedies are put in place within six months—we hope that the Director-General of Fair Trading will be able to reach an earlier agreement on the transitional remedy.
"The commission also recommends that the Director-General of Fair Trading should review all the remedies three years after its implementation. Under the Fair Trading Act there is flexibility for a review to take place sooner.
"We state our view that if at any time within the three years the Office of Fair Trading observes more effective competition emerging—or banks have proposals they believe would make for a more competitive environment—then an early review could and should take place.

967
"Our goal is to create an environment where new entrants can compete with existing banks on a fair basis and both can secure more competitive services for small businesses.
"I urge the banks to work with the Director-General of Fair Trading to achieve what is in everyone's interest: a better service, a fairer deal for Britain's three-and-a-half million small businesses".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.42 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am of course extremely grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. That said, I cannot let the moment pass without registering some protest and resentment. By no means do I attach opprobrium to the Minister. I cannot be certain, but he might have preferred to have had a clear run at his Employment Bill brief in Grand Committee. But the point does have to be made that we were advised that this Statement was being made at a very late hour. Indeed, my understanding is that colleagues in another place were only given 25 minutes notice.
Following hard on the heels of the failure of the Government to offer a full Statement on the White Paper concerning economic and financial reform of the European Union, is this not another regrettable example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's distain for due parliamentary process? I therefore suggest to the noble Lord that we would be extremely grateful if he could use his not inconsiderable influence to try to persuade his Treasury colleagues, and indeed the Chancellor, of the merits of observing the courtesies and giving adequate notice of impending Statements. Tangentially, and because I have touched on it, I also take this opportunity to iterate our expressed wish for a proper debate on the European Union reform White Paper.
It has been suggested—and perhaps the noble Lord can confirm this—that the Competition Commission report which forms the substance of the Statement, has been gathering dust within the Department of Trade and Industry for some five months. Insofar as that is accurate, it represents an unusual delay, particularly against the background of the lightning speed with which the Chancellor has sprung his Statement on Parliament today. But in these circumstances perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether it might not have been more helpful and beneficial to have published the report earlier to afford a period of consultation on it? In effect, does not the Chancellor's decision to publish the report in conjunction with the Government's response to it, have the effect of stifling proper and legitimate debate about its content?
Having got those two points off my chest, I hope that your Lordships will acknowledge that in the time available it has been a herculean task to get to grips with the subject matter of the Statement. The Competition Commission report itself runs to four London-sized telephone directories. Inevitably, therefore, our analysis of both the report and the
968
Statement to date has had to be somewhat cursory. As we delve deeper I have no doubt, therefore, that other issues and questions will arise. None the less, we note the observation from the Chancellor that,
"Our starting point and guiding objective is our belief in competition as the spur to efficiency, innovation and competitiveness".
Hooray to that. We have no difficulty in accepting the premise that the most important way to get a good deal for small business is via the route of competition.
To that extent do the Government accept that notwithstanding the findings of the Cruickshank review there has already been a significant enhancement to competition in the banking sector in recent times through the entry into the small and medium-sized enterprises lending market of the likes of Abbey National and the National Australian Group?
My understanding of the Statement is that the recommendations of the Competition Commission, as accepted by the Government, are to be focused on the biggest four banks, which cover 86 per cent of the market. Is that a correct assumption? Or is it the Government's intention that the recommendations should apply to the whole banking sector, including new entrants? In this context, too, we would welcome some clarification of the implications that the recommendations may or may not have for the proposals for the universal bank.
We note, too, that the Government have accepted the recommendation that the banks should conduct a feasibility study about sharing branches. However, how will the Government respond should the banks decline to conduct such a study?
As I have already suggested, we can afford to give a gentle welcome to the Chancellor's acceptance of the recommendations. As I am sure the Minister will readily accede, we need more time to study the detail of the report before we can be satisfied that the Statement is worthy of a more robust welcome. On balance, we can conclude that this does represent a reasonable step forward in furthering the interest of small and medium-sized businesses. However, it would be remiss of me if I were not to make the point that in reality it is relatively small beer when set against the tide of regulation and red tape that the Government have imposed on them: 4,642 regulations last year alone, one for every 25 minutes of every working day in the year.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in her announcement of the publication of the report, states,
"The Competition Commission finds that as a result small and medium-sized enterprises in England and Wales are being overcharged".
That may be so in the banking sector. But equally we should not lose sight of the Government's own capacity, as it were, to overcharge small and medium-sized enterprises with red tape and regulation. After all, the Government—and here we on these Benches wholeheartedly agree—acknowledge the significance and importance of the small business sector both to

969
and within the economy. To that extent it merits assistance from government, not only in respect of banking services, as announced in the Statement, but also more widely in relieving the regulatory burden.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I declare an interest as an investment manager and an employee of a British investment bank. We on these Benches wholeheartedly support the Competition Commission's report, both in its analysis of the banking services market and in its prescriptions for action. It comes as no surprise for us. We have been pointing out the problem and campaigning for a solution along these lines for the past two years. We support it strongly, but it has taken far too long for action to come.
It seems to us that the commission has clearly established that competition between the largest banks serving small and medium-sized businesses is limited. In particular, it is very hard for such businesses to compare charges and service. The banks are also slow in practice to let their business customers use their ultimate sanction which, of course, as consumers, is to close and move their accounts. But those two things have to be done at the same time so customers and banks are in rather a different position from customers of some other services.
We also strongly support the point made about the independence of the Competition Commission and the fact that such recommendations should be accepted without political interference. That is an important point and we strongly support that principle.
It has been a long Statement and I do not intend to detain the House for long. However, it is right to pick out the section of the report that identified the £725 million a year excess charges that the four largest clearing banks alone had made in the past three years. The commission analysed the figures and pointed out how much the overcharging had cost customers. It is not hard to see in that case why the commission concluded that the level of pricing in this area needs a decisive and significant downward shift. The banks should not he too unhappy with the proposal that they should offer a minimum rate of interest that is no worse than 2.5 per cent less than the Bank base rate. It would not be too crippling, given that it would be 1.5 per cent on deposits today.
Will the Minister also recognise that slow transmission of money by the banks is an effective extra charge to businesses? Time is money if there is too long a gap between charging the person sending the money and giving value to the person receiving it. I hope that that will also be taken into account.
I end with a question. Why has it taken the Government so long to act? The problems in this area were clear when the Cruickshank report was published two years ago. Small businesses in many different sectors and different parts of the economy have been suffering badly from our extremely unbalanced economy over the past two years and they need
970
practical help from their banks now. We welcome the report and look forward to urgent action from the Government—better late than never.
4.51 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their responses to the Statement. I start with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, about process. I entirely reject the analysis that he has given on what happened. The usual practice with Competition Commission reports is to make no statement at all, either written or oral. The normal practice is response by press notice. We have done it this way on this occasion because the report is about an entire market of the UK economy. We emphasise the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises in the Statement itself. That is why the Chancellor and the Secretary of State felt it necessary to make a Statement to Parliament. W. are often criticised for not making Statements to Parliament. As we are so often criticised for leaking and spinning Statements beforehand, I must make it clear that we are entirely fulfilling our obligations to Parliament as obviously there were no leaks or spins on this report or Statement.
Having said that, the Chancellor is constrained by considerations of market sensitivity and by the confidentiality requirements of the Fair Trading Act. He explained that to Michael Howard and Matthew Taylor in letters this morning and, of course, he took steps to ensure that the Speaker was informed. All that we properly could and did do was to inform the banks late last night that a Statement would be made. For obvious reasons of commercial confidentiality and market sensitivity, we could not confide to anyone what would be in the Statement. All the documents, including the text of the report, were available in the Printed Paper Office at exactly the same time as they were in the House of Commons. I used to have to do this in opposition, so I appreciate that it is extraordinarily difficult to try to understand such matters in a short time. But I hope that the House will agree that proprieties in this case have been observed with great precision.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, went on to say that the report had been gathering dust for five months. It certainly has not. Until we have achieved by statute the full independence of the Competition Commission, Ministers have a severe responsibility on them. Even if they are to accept all the commission's recommendations, they have to assure themselves that its analysis is soundly based and must examine the possibilities of remedy. That is why in the period between the provision of the unpublished report and today, Ministers commissioned Sir Bryan Carsberg to analyse the accounting standards in the report, which he found to be sound. They also consulted the Director-General of Fair Trading on implementation. Again, that was referred to in the report. I do not think that in those circumstances the request for earlier publication for consultation will be seen to be appropriate.

971
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, also asked whether there had been some improvement since the Cruickshank report. There may have been, but it has not affected the extreme dominance of the big four in the banking market, which is the important point. In any case the recommendations are not for the whole banking sector. The 13 behavioural recommendations are for the eight big banks and the immediate recommendation is for the big four banks who have been found guilty of excessive charging. I do not think that there is any read across to the universal bank. The noble Earl denied that his response was grudging. I would say that it was modified rapture.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, for his support and agree with him entirely about the importance of making it easy to switch banks to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises have proper banking services, which is the subject of many of the recommendations, including the 13 recommendations for the eight banks and the more informal observations. The noble Lord is right on the question of the independence of the Competition Commission, but, as I have said, until the enterprise Bill achieves that, Ministers have responsibility.
On the question of the slow transition of money, again this is something with which we agree. It was an important part of Cruickshank's recommendations, but it applies not only to small and medium-sized enterprises but to large enterprises and personal banking. We expect action in response to Cruickshank, but we are considering a rather wider subject today. As for the time it takes to produce results, Cruickshank identified problems. The Competition Commission has identified solutions and in accepting its report those solutions are in hand.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I welcome the Chancellor's Statement today, as distinct from a mere press release. This is a most important matter. I do not share at all the grumbles of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, at the five months that the Government have had—if that is the right number of months—to consider the matter. I welcome, too, the Chancellor's suggestion yet again that the enterprise Bill that will be introduced will give responsibility to the competition authorities to ensure that their proposals will be carried forward and that the Government will he unable to interfere by amending or altering them—whatever the phrase is. At present, the Government have a legal responsibility to deal with those matters. Hence the five months and the proper consultation that they undertook.
I hope that the Minister will forgive me as I have not yet read the enormous report. It looks as if the main proposals outlined by the Competition Commission are sensible and that the Government have accepted them. However, one part of the Statement worries me somewhat. I refer to the £725 million a year excess profit that has been made by the four major clearing banks for a period—I do not know for how long. All the proposals of the Competition Commission, which
972
have been accepted by the Government, are designed to make the market more competitive in the future, and it is to be hoped that they will work. None the less, those excess profits have been made. We are informed in the Statement that the Competition Commission has not proposed a windfall tax and that the Government have agreed that there should not be one. When I get round to reading the Competition Commission report I shall no doubt see its negative reasons for that. But what are the Government's reasons for not imposing a windfall tax in the light of the clear statements about the excess profits made by the banks on the grounds described?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Borrie for his welcome for the Statement. I shall let him into a secret—I have not read the report either. I received it as late as anyone else and I have read as much of the surrounding documentation as I can.
My noble friend is right. The Competition Commission found, after a rather complicated accounting analysis, that the four principal banks have made excess profits of £725 million per year over the past three years. That is the period with which it was concerned. He asked why we have accepted the Competition Commission's recommendation that there should not be a windfall tax on the banks. Although there are good precedents for windfall taxes—after all, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, imposed a windfall tax on banking profits in 1981, and so it is not unheard of even in the banking sector—we felt that, on balance, on this occasion it was more important to put matters right for the future rather than to seek penalties for the past. Small and medium enterprises are looking for action in the future.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have declared my financial interests at the micro end of the small and medium enterprise scale many times before and I do so again today.
The Statement refers to a transitional remedy—or, rather, four transitional parts of a single remedy. My interest lies in two of those transitional parts. As I understand the Statement, the banks are either to pay interest on SM E accounts, or they are to offer a current account free of money transmission charges, or a choice between the two. From the point of view of SMEs, the result will be a trade off between cash flow and lower costs.
Be that as it may, I am always slightly suspicious of the phrase "transitional remedy". Transitional remedies attached to Acts of Parliament and so on are sometimes of short-term duration and sometimes of long-term duration. Like everyone else, I have not read the detailed background to the Statement but I know that there is a whole string of long-term remedies. Does this mean that the transitional remedies will disappear when the long-term remedies are completely effective?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I, too, should declare an interest. I have spent most of my

973
working life owning and running a small rather than medium sized enterprise. The noble Lord's analysis of the proposed remedies is right. Their intention is to secure greater competition. The matter will be kept under continuous review by the Office of Fair Trading. It is conceivable that, if the remedies are applied as we intend they shall be, after a period of time there will be evidence of greater competition in these markets and it will be no longer necessary for this undertaking to continue. But that is some way into the future. Let us get justice for small and medium enterprises first and then look at the effectiveness of the longer-term remedies.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, as the banking problem in rural areas is not so much a lack of access to bank branches for new entrants to the market as a lack of access to any bank branch for banking customers at large, can the Minister say what progress has been made on enhanced facilities through post offices in rural areas, without whom this Statement about competition remains somewhat academic?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said in response to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that there is no read-across from the proposals for a universal hank, which are still going ahead. The idea of a universal bank — to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is referring—is that it should offer very basic banking services, particularly for those who are without bank facilities at the present time. It is unlikely that that will apply to many of the small and medium enterprises with which the report and the Statement are concerned.
The noble Lord is right. The reduction in the number of bank branches in rural areas is a serious problem, but as it is not seen as a competition issue the Competition Commission did not consider the matter. However, the Government are well aware of the problem and wish to see it resolved.

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
5.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
(Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Baroness Cumberlegemoved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"National Health Service Agency for England

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE AGENCY FOR ENGLAND
  (1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the National Health Service Agency for England (referred to in this Act as "the English Agency") for the purpose of carrying out the functions transferred or assigned to it by or under this Act.
  (2) The functions of the English Agency are performed on behalf of the Crown."
  The noble Baroness said: Before I speak to my amendments, I declare an interest as a board director of Huntsworth plc, as an associate of Quo Health, as an unpaid chair of St George's Medical School, and I am involved in a number of charities, also unpaid.
  In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 6. I do so with great optimism. I have no doubt whatever that the Minister will embrace them with the fondness of a familiar friend. In his former life as chief executive of the NHS Confederation, the Minister promoted a similar model. I am not looking backwards; I am looking forwards and seek to modernise. The purpose of the proposed new clauses is to remove politicians from the direct management of the NHS and to set up an agency for that task.
  Let me begin with a quote:
  "The public want accountability but are not very keen on the fact that the responsibility for it lies with the elected politicians, whom they don't altogether trust".
  The words are not mine but those of Mr Paul Corrigan, written only last summer, in regard to a new model for the NHS. Members of the Committee who are Whitehall watchers will know that Mr Paul Corrigan is now the special adviser to the Secretary of State—and all noble Lords will surely be aware of how special a special adviser is.
  So, with a bit of luck, I could have the support of the Minister and the Secretary of State's special adviser. Better still, I know that I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who is an internationally distinguished economist and sits on the Government Benches. He is launching a special and important hook tonight. His book contains well over 300 pages, and I am sure that it will be read in academic circles and beyond. I am grateful to him for being here today and supporting these amendments.
  I also have the support of the twin Baronesses of Llandaff, if I may call them that. Llandaff is clearly a place of great resource and sagacity. They also have put their names to these amendments. That is very important to me because the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, was the first professor of nursing in the UK and has been an outstanding leader of nurses, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is a medic with an international reputation in the field of cancer care. In tabling these amendments, I was anxious to obtain the support of health professionals because I believe that health professionals really know the consequences of political interference, and, of course, there is nothing more compelling than personal experience.

  975
  It is true that politics and politicians have never been able to sustain the reputation for goodness. But political input into the NHS is, of course, necessary, since the wise men from the Treasury bring the great and essential gift of money. Therefore, political accountability is a major issue. However, politicians are handicapped. They have to run the NHS in four or five year races between elections. That in itself is incompatible with managing a huge and complex organisation. The dash to do something when targets are not met or when things seem to go awry is irresistible. As the press cuttings mount, the panic increases and another ill-thought-through initiative is directed through the system, another reorganisation of the management, as if that will solve the problem.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said at Second Reading, health Ministers have gone into initiative overdrive, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham pleaded for the NHS to be left alone. That view was echoed by the former Secretary of State, the right honourable Mr Frank Dobson, who recently wrote in the February edition of the Nursing Standard:
  "Most people in the NHS don't want another round of management reorganisation. They want to be left alone … By the time I ceased to be Health Secretary, I realised that NHS management and staff needed more discretion to be able to respond to the varying needs of local patients, make best use of new methods of working and new equipment and play to the strengths of local clinical teams".
  I think it is sad that he did not stay a little longer.
  Effective managers know that successful change is brought about not by endless tinkering with the systems but by inspiring leadership and well-motivated staff. Real change has to be effected from the bottom up. What really matters is what doctors, nurses and managers do, how they are trained, how they are motivated, what they feel about the world; and at the moment it is not good.
  I suspect that the Minister will know from his many travels around the country that NHS managers have had to re-apply for their own jobs sometimes five or six times in 10 years. As a result, too many of the best find something better to do and leave. We are losing a whole cohort of experience, knowledge and wisdom from the NHS.
  When the NHS trusts were introduced they were an innovation; they devolved power. I remember that as a former regional chairman I considered that my most important role was to seek out the best people to chair those new trust boards and to ensure that the non-executives would make a significant input, bringing wisdom, knowledge and a wider perspective to the management of those boards. We were successful, too. We appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to chair a trust, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, to be a non-executive, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, to be a member of a health authority, to name but a few. It was very important for us to get the best people, because the chairs and the trust boards appointed the chief executive and the management team. The boards made the strategic decisions, and when things went wrong the chairs fell on their swords.
  976
  That has now changed. Today the word "trust" is a misnomer. Trusts are not to be trusted. The trust boards do not appoint chief executives—Ministers do. When things go wrong, Richmond House sacks the chief executive by e-mail. Even the department is not trusted. Decisions are taken by the Cabinet Office special advisers, unseen people known only to the most high.
  The clauses that I move today do not further disrupt the delivery of services to patients. They do not give birth to another quango. Rather, they are there to build a new relationship between patients, politicians and NHS staff. They are about transferring one part of the organisation into a different position, transferring those powers and responsibilities.
  The amendments that I propose are mirrored in the clauses to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, reflecting the Welsh dimension. My first amendment inserts a new clause before Clause I of the Bill. That clause establishes a new corporate body, to be known as the National Health Service Agency for England, whose functions are performed on behalf of the Crown.
  The second proposed new clause sets out the composition of the agency, with 12 members, a chairman, a deputy chairman, five non-executive members and five executive members. The chairman of the agency will appoint a chief executive, the appointment to be approved by the Secretary of State. That follows the pattern of other agencies and seeks to get the commitment of both the board and the Secretary of State. Without the confidence of both those parties, the chief executive could have no hope of success. Since this body will be pivotal in managing the NHS, I have given the Secretary of State the power to prescribe its constitution by regulation.
  The third proposed new clause describes the functions of the English agency and gives power to the Secretary of State to amend the functions through affirmative regulations and to give directions on strategic matters relating to its functions. The fourth new clause concerns the transfer of property, rights and liabilities necessary for the discharge of its functions. The fifth concerns the financing of the agency and its accountability for the spending of public money. The sixth and final clause ensures that the agency is accountable to Parliament. It will be open to the committees of both Houses to scrutinise the agency's activities.
  In drawing up these clauses, I have taken a great deal of advice, and I am grateful to all those who have helped me—not least the King's Fund. However, I am under no illusion that they are probably imperfect and could be improved. Therefore, my purpose today is not to produce a blueprint but to keep the King's Fund initiative going and to instil in people's minds the fact that there is another way, a third way, a better way to run the NHS.
  This is not new territory. There are a number of models, such as the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Medical Research Council, the Food Standards Agency, the Audit Commission,

  977
  the BBC and so on, which could be adapted. Every one is unique and tailored to its purpose, but that should not prevent Ministers and the department from using their immense skills and imagination to do the same for the NHS. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed the nation when he gave away Treasury powers to the independent Bank of England, the political will is necessary.
  When the King's Fund produced its report, the response in the national media was amazing. The headline in the Independent, above an editorial by Donald Macintyre, was:
  "If only politicians could keep their hands off the NHS";
  in the Evening Standard,
  "Politicians are crippling NHS, warns Lord Haskins";
  and on the BBC website,
  "Ministers should stay out of the NHS".
  I could quote many more examples. This is a very popular initiative among the public. It is even more popular among those who work in the NHS.
  In summing up, I want to be fair to politicians but governments have a pretty disastrous record of managing organisations. They are poor at it because the majority of them have no experience. I exclude the Minister, who has very successfully run an organisation with a commercial element to it, but that is an exception and he is exceptional. Politicians have to work within an impossible electoral cycle, and they are nomadic. Ministers and Secretaries of State do not last, so there is no continuity. On Second Reading, my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon told the story of a civil servant who had worked for 17 different departments for 43 Ministers, but always in the same room.
  The speed of change in medicine is a huge challenge, and change needs a robust organisation to manage it. My amendments are a first step to a separation between politics and health, to take the day-to-day management of the NHS seriously. I am not advocating a private NHS run for profit, but a competent, effective hoard of directors to appoint the best managers—a board that will be accountable to the Secretary of State and to Parliament; a board that will establish and run, on a day-to-day basis, an organisation that suits the needs of the health service, not the imperatives of a manifesto.
  The organisation that I am advocating is not one further to disrupt the delivery of service to patients. I ask all noble Lords, and Members of another place, to look deeply at the performance of politicians, and at the political system, as to its suitability and effectiveness in running the NHS; and to ask the following questions. Do we have a health service that befits the fourth largest economy on earth? Is the taxpayer getting value for money? Is each person getting what he or she needs from the National Health Service? After a period of introspection, perhaps we the politicians ought to have the courage to fall on our swords and leave the detailed management of healthcare to others. I beg to move.
  Lord Desai: It gives me great pleasure to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady
  978
  Cumberlege, to which I have attached my name. I thank the noble Baroness for the free publicity that she gave to my book. As I explained to my noble friend the Minister, if the debate continues for a certain length of time, I may have to leave the Chamber. I am slightly more liable to be blamed there than here for what I have done—so I had better own up now.
  It is also a pleasure to participate in this debate because my political career reached its height when I was shadowing the noble Baroness in this place. Since that time I have occupied positions further and further away from the Front Bench on this side of the Chamber. That serves me right! I should add that I was present at the creation of this proposal. The noble Baroness put forward the idea at a dinner organised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, at the Adam Smith Institute, where we freely and openly discussed the sort of problems faced by the National Health Service and what we could do about them.
  One of the better aspects of the second term of the Labour Government is that we are now engaged in a very open debate about the problems of the NHS. That is very healthy. After all this debate, we may decide to make lots, or very few, changes but we are in the process of examining it very critically. At the dinner to which I referred, the noble Baroness suggested that perhaps we should set up an independent agency to run the NHS, but—lo and behold!—the King's Fund put forward the same idea soon afterwards. That is very impressive, because my noble friend Lord Haskins, who knows a good deal about red tape, regulations and running businesses was chairing that committee at the time.
  I remember Nye Bevan saying with some pride that a clattering bedpan in any hospital should shake the Secretary of State for Health. That is the most absurd model of running a corporation that I can think of, although no doubt it was said with the best intentions. Perhaps we thought in those days that a totally centralised and totally politicised institution was the best way to run the NHS. You certainly cannot sustain that model today. That was illustrated rather tragically when we had this bit of a to-do in another place about Mrs Rose Addis, whose problems were discussed at Prime Minister's Questions and featured on national television in a manner whereby all sides seemed to be guilty. That should never have happened.
  It is, indeed, a puzzle. Food is perhaps as important as health, if not more so. If I manage to pick up half a dozen rotten eggs at a Tesco store, my MP does not have to ask the Prime Minister what he will do about it with immediate effect. Those problems are not seen to be ministerial problems; they are seen as problems that have to be sorted out in some other way. We must have reached the stage by now when we ought set up a model of the NHS, without giving up any of its fundamental core principles. As the noble Baroness emphasised, this is not a scheme to privatise or to change in any way the nature of the NHS: the object is to improve its management.
  Therefore, we need to ask ourselves whether it is now time to depoliticise the running of the health service. Obviously, politics will be in command. There

  979
  would be a Secretary of State for Health to take care of the strategic thinking and the Treasury would have to provide the money, but we still need a new model. Of the new models that are available to us, I should like to commend the example of the Higher Education Funding Council. I presume that I should declare an interest at this point because, as an academic, I am a victim of the HEFC. Nevertheless, it is a good model because it receives money from the Treasury and then allocates it to higher education institutions under various clearly transparent criteria. The advantage of having such a model would be the depoliticisation of the NHS. To that extent, it would preserve the morale not only of the people who work within the health service but also—I refer back to the case of Mrs Addis—that of the patients who use the service. We should never again find ourselves in the situation where, for whatever reason, patients become political footballs.
  For me, the crucial amendments are Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I very much admire the precision with which the noble Baroness has laid down the functions of the proposed agency. However, I should like to make one further point as regards a further function that the agency might be able to carry out—one that it would be difficult to perform under the present system. One of the major problems with the present system relates to a sense of ownership. We must give patients a sense of ownership of their National Health Service in two senses: first, they are taxpayers who provide the money for the service; and, secondly, they must take responsibility for their own health. People should take care of their health, with the help of the NHS; but, at all times, they should feel that this is something that they own.
  One of the problems with the present over-centralised and over-politicised system is that it is difficult to cultivate that sense of ownership because party politics ultimately interfere in the way in which the NHS is seen to be run. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will make a very short speech and say, "Agreed".
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 standing also in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I was delighted to be able to add my name to theirs.
  At Second Reading, I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. It seemed to me that she was giving expression to the kind of reforms that I had been longing to hear raised throughout my experience in the National Health Service from 1948 onwards—since its inception. I then read the King's Fund report, The Future of the NHS—A framework for debate, which has previously been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, as it has by the last two speakers in this debate.
  980
  Following the publication of the Government's NHS Plan, the King's Fund brought together a group of considerable expertise and wide experience—senior commentators, academics and practitioners from health and other sectors—to consider the future of the National Health Service. This diverse and experienced group worked under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. Their analysis of the problems of the National Health Service reflects my own experience in the service over the years, and I respond positively to many of their recommendations. The amendments that we have tabled would go some way to fulfilling the changes that they suggest.
  The King's Fund group identified three inter-related problems: over-politicisation of the National Health Service; excessive centralisation; and a lack of responsiveness to individuals and local communities. That confirms my experience. The report suggests that the key to these problems is enabling front-line staff, patients and the public to assert greater influence over how healthcare is managed and delivered.
  I have no doubt that, in the early clauses of the Bill, the Government seek to empower front-line staff and place their expertise at the centre of care delivery. The Bill also seeks greater public and patient involvement. I know that nurses welcome these aspirations. However, I believe that the reforms as set out in the Bill still leave the National Health Service with a political stranglehold on its day-to-day management.
  It is, of course naïve to suggest that health could be taken out of politics. While healthcare is provided out of general taxation, there has to be a political will to allocate a budget and to set the broad strategy outlines for the health policies which express the democratic values of the day. The question is not whether the state should or should not be involved, but the nature and extent of that involvement.
  The problem with the present system is that successive governments have increasingly been drawn into the operational detail and day-to-day running of the service. The intense political pressure to achieve certain targets has resulted in anomalies such as that recently reported by the National Audit Office when it identified "inappropriate adjustments to waiting lists". I know that nursing staff, for instance, become frustrated and disillusioned when the "star rating" of their trust is reduced and they feel impotent to alter it by their own efforts. The King's Fund report states with some eloquence:
  "The dynamics of the current system draws the Government into taking responsibility for every 'dropped bedpan"!
  In previous reforms, too much attention has been focused on reforming the structure of the NHS. We have lurched from the tripartite system of the early NHS to the many-layered district, area and regional layers of governance; to hospital trusts and primary care trusts, and the introduction of the internal market. All have been implemented without much analysis of the impact on patients and staff.
  I was a member of an area health authority prior to 1976, when I resigned to join the Royal Commission on the National Health Service. I spent three years

  981
  serving on the commission examining the structure of the NHS, and every layer of staff and the way in which the service worked. More recently, I have been a member of an area health authority and chairman of its complaints committee. I am left with the feeling that we are often busy rearranging the deckchairs while the "Titanic" sinks. The emphasis on structure and adapting to successive new structures saps a great deal of the professional energy that we prize so highly in our National Health Service. The structure does little to liberate professionals to give high-quality care.
  This experience, and talking to nurses and many other health professionals, convinces me of the need to create distance between the Government and the NHS, and the need for an organisation working at arm's length from the Government. We have some notable examples of how this can work in organisations such as the Higher Education Funding Council, the Environment Agency, and the Food Standards Agency. Our amendments seek to establish a National Health Service agency for England, and—in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—an NHS agency for Wales. They seek also to delineate the respective functions of the agency and the Secretary of State. I commend the amendments.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on introducing this subject. We have already heard three notable speeches. My congratulations are not purely because the noble Baroness quoted from my Second Reading speech—although that is always very welcome.
  One of the points on which many of us agree is that the Government's scheme of devolution as set out in the Bill is inadequate. That has been pointed up in the speeches so far. The inexorable centralisation that has taken place in the NHS over the past 10 years will not be reversed by the terms of the Bill as it stands.
  We have only to look at the position of the chief executive of the NHS over the years. We had Sir Andrew Foster, followed by Sir Alan Langland, followed by Mr Nigel Crisp. If we look at the way in which each of those individuals carried out their job and the constraints to which they were subject, it is extraordinary how much more centralised the NHS became in that period and how more power has gone to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has progressively taken more power over the NHS, mostly in the name of performance management but also in terms of funding. That has been the case in every single area of the NHS. Discretion at local level has been reduced inexorably over time.
  A number of previous speakers have referred to the plethora of targets. The taunt which the Government like least is being accused of micro-management. But micro-management is what this Government do. As the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, made clear, it leads to a loss of morale. If professionals do not have a discretion to operate and are constantly subject to intervention, that leads to a loss of morale. I agree entirely that the structures proposed in the Bill will not lead to the liberation of the health professions. They will lead to more constraints. In that respect, the Bill is
  982
  entirely flawed. One has only to ask the question: what will the Bill do to boost the morale of those who work in the health service? The answer is: very little, if anything. Therefore, the grounds on which the amendment is based are extremely strong.
  Clearly, any scheme of devolution of responsibility for the NHS must be genuine. The current scheme proposed by the Government actually gives more power to Ministers rather than less. On those grounds, I do not believe that it is a genuine attempt at devolution. For devolution to be effective and genuine, there need to be one or more strong, accountable bodies responsible for health service strategy, supervening between government and local delivery. There also need to be geographical entities with clear and common boundaries, which would enable joined-up strategy with a range of other public services, such as housing, education, transport, environment and social services.
  In the view of the Liberal Democrats, those conditions are clearly met by regions. When regional assemblies are created, a further benefit of accountability would be met. Regional health authorities or regional assemblies would have the critical mass to ensure sufficient expertise in specialist commissioning and public health, where the new structures in the Bill give rise to particular concern.
  That is one model. There is clearly a need for further debate. I have a great deal of regard for the work of the King's Fund and its recent report, which has been mentioned by all the previous speakers. It is a very thought-provoking piece of work, which does not necessarily exclude other regional models of organisation. In particular, its emphasis on the need for decentralisation of real power to acute trusts and PCTs is important, as is its perception that the NHS is over-politicised, too centralised and lacking in responsiveness.
  I am not yet convinced that a single, monolithic, quasi-government body is a great deal better at the top level than the one we have at present. We need to think of a more varied and diverse model. That is why I believe that we should go for the regional model. Directionally, the King's Fund report and the amendments are right. However, in addition to the structure of devolution, there needs to be a clear commitment at the same time to simplification of our structures and of our clinical governance procedures. That would help morale enormously. A great difference would be made not just by the structures, but by their quality and simplicity. On Second Reading I quoted 21 different methods of clinical governance by which health professionals are governed. We have to simplify that to make a difference.
  There is a great deal more to debate. The Liberal Democrats have made no bones about our belief that the Bill is premature in the way in which it tries to tackle current NHS structures, introducing a half-baked solution to the issue of devolution and the need to increase the morale and autonomy of professionals and managers. There is a whole debate to carry on. As

  983
  I said on Second Reading, the Government should take away their structural proposals and allow that debate to continue.
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It is not clear whether the Liberal Democrats are in favour of the amendment or of the Government's idea. The noble Lord seemed to speak in favour of both sides. Perhaps we should not be too surprised by that—I am not sure.
  I was not able to speak on Second Reading, but I listened to a lot of the debate, including the speech of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, and I read the rest with enormous interest. There is a great deal to discuss on the Bill. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who moved the amendment, together with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, who amplified what my noble friend said so ably, have done a great service to Parliament by highlighting the root cause of the mess that the National Health Service is now in. There are many problems, but the root cause is undoubtedly that there is too much involvement of Ministers in the running of the National Health Service.
  I am told by people who work in the National Health Service—including some in Scotland, although we are not discussing Scotland—that, as one would expect, the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, are accurate. There is a widespread view among professionals in the National Health Service that that is the problem. People do not talk about the problem out loud because they do not know the answer and they do not want to upset Ministers, naturally. They cannot suggest anything positive, so they do not express that view.
  The King's Fund has done a great service in analysing the situation and coming up with a similar idea. I was involved in the universities during the period when they were adjusting to the fact that the Government were not dealing with them directly, but doing so through the funding council. I was also involved with further education colleges when they stopped working directly with local authorities and their funding moved to a funding council. It took a bit of time, but the effect was not far from miraculous. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, will confirm that people at all levels began talking realistically, sensibly and responsibly about how they were spending their money and, in the case of universities, how they could preserve academic freedom within that process.
  The Scottish funding council is on such good terms with the universities that there are no complaints. Having said that, I suspect that I shall immediately get a shoal of letters, but I have noticed that the universities are really rather pleased with how the system is working. Imagine what a similar system would be like in the health service.
  The National Health Service is an enormous organisation, with 1 million employees. It is ridiculous to think that it can be run centrally. It would of course
  984
  be ridiculous if an agency such as that proposed by my noble friend tried to do that. However, the agency would not have the imperative to do that. The criterion for its success would be that the National Health Service operated gradually better for patients and professionals and that everybody felt freer to run the thing in the right way. The agency would not have to be doing things every day, along the lines of Mr Blunkett's philosophy of "An initiative a day or a day wasted". That is what currently happens in the National Health Service. The system would not depend on new initiatives; it would depend on the ability of the agency to show that it had arranged things in such a way that everybody was taking responsibility better. Then it really would be possible to devolve, because there would he no pressures not to do so. The Government would have no need to be frightened, because under my noble friend's proposals the Secretary of State would be able to place constraints on the agency if he felt that he had to do so.
  The proposal should be taken very seriously as a possible way forward. The Government should not find it too difficult. Although they have not come up with the suggestion, it has clearly been rumbling around as an idea in the health service for some time. If the Minister has "Reject" written on his briefing notes, I hope that he will not follow that line, but will stand up like a very experienced man and accept that a lot of wise things have been said—not by me, but by people who know much better than I do what they are talking about—and that the idea should be followed up. I support the amendment.
  Baroness Pitkeathley: I am a great admirer of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and of the King's Fund, but I am afraid that I am not able to support the amendment. My view, which sounds heretical in the context of this debate, is that there is no getting away from the fact that the provision of healthcare is a political issue. As long as the noble Baroness and others ask questions such as, "Is the taxpayer getting value for money?"; as long as we have a health service that is funded out of general taxation, to which we are all committed; and as long as patients are represented by the political process, we cannot take politics out of the NHS. At least we cannot depoliticise the strategy of the NHS. We can, however, depoliticise the running of the NHS.
  The Bill offers us the opportunity to do that because of its emphasis on primary care and putting most of the power at primary care level. We have been saying for years that power in the NHS should be as near as possible to the patient and his or her family. I think that the Bill will do that. Primary care trusts will make it much more possible than ever before to achieve the sense of ownership that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, described, and to help patients become more responsible for their own health. The "inexorable centralisation of the NHS" described by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also can be dealt with by devolving power to primary care trusts, where patients will have much greater access and much greater control. That is also what the NHS professionals want.

  985
  Nowadays, whenever one speaks to NHS professionals, almost all of them—with the exception of one or two old pockets of resistance—say that the real emphasis must be on what patients want. As that is what the professionals want, I think that the proposals will deliver both improved morale and improved delivery.
  I have one other concern about the amendment. I hope that, as we make progress on the Bill, because it is an NHS reform Bill, we shall not forget that the NHS is inextricably intertwined with the provision of social care by local authorities and others at local level. Although the point is made explicitly in the unfortunate term "bed blocking", it obviously also arises before the patient is admitted to hospital. In addition to health care provision, social care provision is enormously important. I do not know how the amendment would address that issue, which remains a concern for me. I oppose the amendment.
  Earl Howe: My noble friend Lady Cumberlege is to he congratulated on presenting us with such a well-argued set of proposals at the start of our Committee proceedings. I venture to say that few former health Ministers on these Benches command greater respect in the House than she does, and I have no doubt that that respect will extend in full measure to her speech today. For my part, I thank her for steering us towards some extremely interesting and fruitful debating territory.
  It seems to me that we can best approach that territory by looking back at recent NHS history. In my lifetime, a succession of structural changes has been imposed on the NHS by governments of both parties. In the 1960s, we had Labour's grand design to rationalise the structure of the NHS under single administrative authorities. We then had the Crossman White Paper of 1970 which proposed an entirely new plan for integrated health services under fewer, larger health authorities. Under the Heath government, we had Keith Joseph's White Paper which proposed 15 regional health authorities above the 90 area health authorities proposed by Crossman. In 1982, the 90 area health authorities were replaced by 200 district health authorities to facilitate better planning and provision of health services at a local level. And so it went on. The aim of all those reforms was the same: to improve the delivery of healthcare to the patient, and to make the system as a whole more co-ordinated and cost-effective.
  The language used nowadays may be slightly different from that of the 1960s and 1970s, but in essence the aim of the new reforms set out in this Bill is absolutely identical. I think that the Government would do well to learn a lesson or two from the past. When it comes to health service reform within the existing Bevanite model, there is really nothing new under the sun. We have been here before. Consequently, we have to ask ourselves a rather obvious question. If past reorganisations of the model have not been entirely successful, why should this latest reorganisation fare any better? We are told that—as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, has
  986
  reminded us—the difference this time is the devolution of 75 per cent of the NHS budget to local level. I have serious doubts about the credibility of that claim. However, because I do not want to anticipate our later debates on PCTs, I shall simply say for now that, after so many reorganisations, over decades, it is at least open to question whether the problem facing us in the NHS is not so much the balance of power within the system as the very nature of the system itself.
  It is of course the pursuit of that line of thought that has prompted my noble friend Lady Cumberlege to table her amendment. Within a nationalised monopoly, we can shift the balance of power all we like, but at the end of the day it is still a nationalised monopoly. Genuine devolution of power would take politicians out of the driving seat and put patients and doctors in their place. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that, for all the Government's claims to the contrary, this Bill does not do that. Ministers will retain as much power, if not more, to influence the delivery of healthcare as they have ever had in the past.
  The Government, understandably perhaps, are sensitive to the suggestion that they have micro-managed the health service. But how else are we to describe the multitude of politically inspired targets imposed on the NHS since 1997? I readily admit that that has happened not just since 1997, but the practice has been put into much sharper focus in recent years. I have no doubt that these targets are, in their own way, well meant. The trouble is that they tend to distort strict clinical priorities. The sickest patients find that they are waiting longer than they should because of the need to treat fewer sick patients within an imposed deadline. Wheels are taken off trolleys so that they are no longer trolleys but beds. The BMA has described the situation as follows:
  "Artificial targets imposed on an overstretched service cannot be met without resorting to ingenious massaging of the figures. It does not fool, nor does it help patients".
  Perhaps the most damning recent criticism has come from the former chief executive of the NHS Confederation, Stephen Thornton, who told his annual conference last year that,
  "Labour has embarked on measures to tighten the grip of central control of the service, motivated by a desire to end unacceptable local variations, which has had the unintended consequence of disempowering many at the front line".
  Of course, as a number of noble Lords have said, that affects morale—which is a point not so far removed from that very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about the need for a sense of ownership in the health service. In October 2001, the NHS Confederation went on to complain that "target fatigue" was setting in, so numerous were the targets that the Government were setting.
  I would be the first to applaud if I felt that the Bill was going to change that situation. I would he the first to welcome a set of proposals that offered the prospect of genuine empowerment of patients and of doctors as patients' advocates. However, the essential structure of the health service will remain unaltered— based, as it always has been, on centralised, top-down control,

  987
  with extensive powers residing with the Secretary of State. Political appointments will continue. This type of centralised management, although motivated by a worthy desire for uniformity and fairness, costs a very great deal of money. The highest percentage growth in NHS staff in the past five years has not been in doctors or nurses, but in managers. There is a price to be paid for the NHS in terms of bureaucracy and, therefore, of efficiency. The system wastes money. In a service that, throughout its life, has been under-funded, that is a heavy price to pay.
  My noble friend's proposition that we should set the health service free from politicians is not new, as she acknowledged. Nor is it free from intellectual hurdles: principally the need to ensure that ministerial accountability to Parliament is preserved to an extent that is balanced and meaningful and, if an NHS agency existed, it would need to avoid the very centralisation and bureaucracy that the present system tends to embody.
  The scale of the difficulties in the NHS makes this an opportune moment to revisit the ideas that my noble friend has set out so well and to examine their implications; not least as a backdrop to this important Bill. I hope that in introducing her amendment, my noble friend will have started a debate that will continue to run in and outside this Chamber among politicians of all parties. It deserves our full attention and engagement.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been an interesting and high quality debate. I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for introducing a subject which, in terms of the balance between local and central, will permeate throughout the debates on the Bill. She has had a distinguished career in the National Health Service and as a health service Minister. From my own experience in the NHS and in the Department of Health for nearly three years, I certainly accept that micro-management of the health service from Whitehall is not sensible or feasible.
  I read the King's Fund report with great interest, and there is much in it that I support and commend to the Committee. However, there are some serious issues that need to be put before your Lordships in relation to the specific proposal that the noble Baroness has put before the Committee. I understand the desire to prevent the NHS from becoming what is often termed "a political football". Over many years, several ideas have been put forward of ways in which to organise the NHS to lessen the degree of political influence in the running of the health service. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, even referred to a paper that I wrote some years ago on this subject. However, that was before I had had the benefit of the extensive re-education provided for me by my officials at the Department of Health. The idea has always been the same: to improve the quality of NHS management by removing it from over-extensive political control. My
  988
  noble friend Lord Desai, who attached his name to the amendment, is shortly to launch his book entitled Marx's Revenge!
  As ever in such matters, I prefer to turn to Bevan and Morrison for encouragement and advice on the balance between the centre, the department, Parliament and the local National Health Service. If one refers back to the extensive debates of the post-war Labour government, one sees the arguments of Morrison, who championed the cause of local government and wanted the NHS to be a local authority service, and Bevan, who rejected that by saying that he thought that such a service would be patchy, and that there would be great inequalities. In a sense, a compromise emerged of a national service run through locally appointed boards. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out, many changes are taking place to the structure, but essentially that is the model with which we are still running the National Health Service. It is certainly true that over the years there have been many debates as to whether that is appropriate.
  As early as 1956, the Guillebaud committee considered this issue. That was a very good report into the financing of the health service. It came to the conclusion that creating a special corporation to run the NHS was flawed. The committee said that,
  "The exact relation of this proposed body … to its minister has never been defined, and it is here that the crux lies. If, in matters both of principle and detail, decision normally rested in the last resort with the minister, the body would in effect be a new department of government … if, on the other hand, certain decisions were removed from the jurisdiction of the Minister (and consequently from direct parliamentary control) there would be need to define with the utmost precision what these decisions were. Clearly they could not include major questions of finance. Nor could any local government authorities responsible for local planning or administration reasonably be asked to submit to being over-ruled by a body not answerable to Parliament".
  The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, was a distinguished member of the 1979 Royal Commission. Again, the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was discussed. It said:
  "The establishment of an independent health commission or board to manage the NHS was one of the solutions most frequently advocated in evidence. There are a number of possible models including the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Post Office, the University Grants Committee and the Manpower Services Commission".
  The commission's conclusion echoed that of Guillebaud. It said:
  "The very large sums of public money required by the NHS would … make some continued parliamentary supervision inevitable. Parliament would, as now, be involved in legislation, the provision of funds and securing financial accountability. The Secretaries of State and the health departments would continue to have major functions, for example in appointing the commission's chairman and members, negotiating the appropriate level of funding and setting priorities and objectives. A commission might act as a buffer between the NHS and Parliament but the NHS would remain dependent on the willingness of Parliament to vote funds. The effect, therefore, might be to duplicate functions that at present are carried out, however unsatisfactorily, by the health departments and the top tier of health authorities".

  989
  In 1983, Sir Roy Griffiths, in his writings, came to a similar conclusion:
  "A case could be made for an independent corporation … This has a variety of defects, not least that one would have to formalise unnecessarily the role of the corporation vis-à-vis the Secretary of State, which would be extremely difficult in such an intensely politically sensitive operation".
  The Griffiths report was highly significant in reaching that conclusion because the logic of all that Griffiths wrote in relation to general management was that there should be a separation between the NHS and the Department of Health. None the less, Roy Griffiths, whose expertise I believe has been unequalled in terms of analysing the issues of management in the health service, came to the conclusion that the kind of independent corporation proposed by the noble Baroness was, in the end, untenable.
  My understanding is that the final review that took place was an internal review by Terry Banks in 1994 a functions and manpower review. As a result of that the then Secretary of State in the previous government reached a similar decision. I say that not to dismiss out of hand the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, because I fully understand and sympathise with where she is going. It is of great interest that all those notable reviews and committees started out sympathetic to the notion, but in the end came to the conclusion that it is not practical to go down that route.
  One problem is that those who advocate the removal of the NHS from the political arena have never satisfactorily explained how proper political accountability would be maintained.
  There is another reason why one should view this proposal with a great deal of caution. Both the noble Earl, Lord. Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, have hinted at it. There is no guarantee that removing the NHS from the purview of ministerial control would remove the risk of over-centralisation. Given that what is proposed is essentially a public corporation, experience over the past 50 years suggests that they tend to be highly centralist. That is not the route down which the Government wish to go.
  The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, spoke eloquently of the need to take the NHS out of politics. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke about the risks of centralisation. He did not speak about the impact of parliamentary scrutiny on the oversight and management of the National Health Service. The noble Lord, in his distinguished career as the Liberal Democrat spokesman on health, has asked many questions. He has made many suggestions of decisive firm action that the Government should take in managing the health service. I have yet to hear him ask a question seeking to remove a target or suggest that the department does not set a policy in a particular area. That applies to many noble Lords who speak in our debates on health. The emphasis of scrutiny in your Lordships' House is to press the Government to take further action, to set further targets—
  Lord Clement-Jones: Is not the fact that more and more powers are taken by Ministers in this
  990
  Government precisely the reason why many Members of this Chamber, including myself, are keen to question the Minister?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, I do not think that that follows. My point is that the inevitable impact of parliamentary scrutiny, given public concern about the National Health Service, is a tendency of Members of both Houses to ask the Government to take further action in relation to the health service, whatever its structure at any one time.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister mentioned the Manpower Services Commission. I was a commissioner of that body when I came to this House. The government of the day was scrutinised the whole time concerning what the Manpower Services Commission was doing. I was not always very happy about what the Minister said because I thought that he sometimes knew what the commission was doing and sometimes he did not. But the Government's actions could be scrutinised totally. I would suggest that there is nothing here to prevent that.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The reference to the Manpower Services Commission was in relation to the report by the Royal Commission in 1979. The Royal Commission looked at the model of the Manpower Services Commission and asked whether that would be a suitable one for the National Health Service. It felt that because of the large sums of public money voted by Parliament for the NHS, intense parliamentary scrutiny would be inevitable. Therefore, it felt that that kind of model was not appropriate for the National Health Service.
  I do not believe that a national agency, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is an appropriate way forward. The challenge for me and for the Bill is to identify a structure to enable parliamentary accountability to be discharged, which sets national standards, allows for effective performance management of the NHS—as it must be because the NHS spends money voted by Parliament—while allowing considerable freedom of action at a local level. My contention is that that is what the Government have done.
  The emphasis in our first term in office was to set up a national framework in which standards were set through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, through national service frameworks, and inspected by the Commission for Health Improvement. Therefore, there is a strong set of national standards with an independent inspectorate. The NHS Modernisation Agency can help improve performance at local levels. Within that context, by setting that national framework, one can then allow much more freedom at a local level. That is what the Bill proposes by the establishment of strategic health authorities and principally by ensuring that primary care trusts, which are close to the frontline, have the bulk of NHS resources.

  991
  I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe—and we shall debate primary care trusts in due course—that my view is that, given that primary care is the crucial influence on activity in the National Health Service, devolving the budget to the primary care level makes a great deal of sense. It matches clinical responsibility with financial responsibility. I am convinced that, given the structure at national level, the commissioning of services at primary care level, we have the foundations to produce the right balance between the centre and locality.
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that we are keen to look at current responsibilities and freedoms of NHS trusts. In the future, he wants those trusts that are performing well to have much less intervention from the centre. We are currently developing plans for foundation hospitals, independent not-for-profit institutions with just an annual cash for performance contract and no further form of performance management from the centre, and mutuals or public interest companies within rather than outside the public services and, particularly, the NHS.
  The foundation that is set in the Bill will allow that structure to flow. It will, rightly, keep accountability to Parliament for the running of the NHS but will allow much greater devolvement to the local level. That is a better response than a national corporation which—however much I sympathise with the reasons put forward by the noble Baroness—risks more centralisation and tensions between such an agency and Ministers. In the end it would not serve the purpose desired by the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Pitkeathley: I offer an apology to the Chamber. It has been pointed out to me that I should have my registered an interest. I work as a very part-time consultant to a company providing nursing and residential care. I should have declared that. I meant no discourtesy to the Committee. I apologise if any was shown.
  Baroness Cumberlege: I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. It has been an interesting debate, especially in its historical context. I particularly thank those who attached their names to the amendments.
  One of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai—who unfortunately has had to leave—is particularly worth mentioning. It really is fairly disgraceful that the cases of individual are dragged across the Floor of the House, discussed in great detail and then blown up in the national press. No one felt proud of the Rose Alice case. Of course there are others.
  That is one of the penalties that we pay when we have politicians so much involved in running the NHS. The noble Baroness, Lady MacFarlane, was absolutely right that it was not a case of whether Parliament was involved, but the nature and the extent
  992
  to which it is involved and how it should be involved. There should be a greater distance between the Government and the NHS.
  I am not trying to negate any accountability, but perhaps I may address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. She said that she felt that one could not take politics out of health. No country's parliament does not get involved in health care but it is a question of degree and how it is done. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, explained how confusion between the political and the executive has increased over the years. He made a plea for clear and common boundaries. I agree. There are many models that we can explore. The King's Fund, on which I have built much of my work, is the first to say that it must go further and that there is much more work to be done.
  My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour drew extremely interesting parallels with the way that the further and higher education funding councils and their predecessor, the university grants committee, evolved over the years. We now see universities set free. My noble friend used the word "miraculous". I want to achieve the same for the National Health Service—a miraculous change in its effectiveness, morale and the way it is run.
  I thank my noble friend Lord Howe for his thoughtful exposition of the history of the NHS and the lessons to be learnt. He was so right to draw attention to morale and the waste of resources. He was absolutely on stream but we need a strong political and intellectual debate—not just in both Houses but outside.
  The Minister said that micro management is neither sensible nor feasible. We agree. But past legislation has intensified it. That is the impression within the NHS. Ministerial teams have consistently bypassed chairs and boards to take direct action in sacking chief executives. If that is not micro management, I do not know what is.
  I was grateful to the Minister for referring to past reports. The reports from Guillebaud, the Royal Commission, the Manpower Services Commission and Sir Roy Griffiths were all important but from another age. The Guillebaud report was produced at a time when we still had the vestiges of post-war rationing. That was a very different world. We have to move on.
  I worked closely with Sir Roy. I was the only person who sat through all the years of the NHS policy board that Sir Roy established. That board was supposed to serve as an umbrella, to protect the NHS from politicians. It was meant to be an intervening mechanism. At that time Sir Roy felt that there could not be a separate corporation or agency of the kind that I am promoting, but he was a realist. He understood not only the health service but industry, commerce and the wider world. He knew that one could not do everything at once but had to take a step-by-step approach.
  The time has come for my proposal to take off. It is an idea of its time. We have many robust intellects within this nation in the King's Fund and far beyond.

  993
  I do not believe that we lack the wit to devise something that will improve the NHS enormously, help the people who work within it and give patients a much better deal.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The kind of national corporation that the noble Baroness espouses might turn out as centralist as any other feature of the health service's structure through the years. Does she not think that the foundation trusts proposed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, which are about creating new types of local organisation, would be given considerably more freedom than current organisations provided they met performance criteria? Does not the noble Baroness accept that that could be a highly successful way of achieving sensible management of the NHS at local level?
  Baroness Cumberlege: However the agency or corporation worked would depend entirely on its rules of engagement. The amendment gives power to the Secretary of State to draw up an agreed constitution. Foundation trusts could be set free but for how long? When will there be intervention? When will the Secretary of State decide that a trust's performance is not up to scratch? What will be the criteria? Many of us are concerned that decisions will be made but not according to clear and concise criteria, so that one will not know exactly when the Secretary of State will intervene.
  I thank noble Lords for an interesting debate. I shall read Hansard carefully but at this time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 not moved.]
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaffmoved Amendment No. 7:
  Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
  "NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE AGENCY FOR WALES
  (1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the National Health Service Agency for Wales (referred to in this Act as "the Welsh Agency") for the purpose of carrying out the functions transferred or assigned to it by or under this Act,
  (2) The functions of the Welsh Agency are performed on behalf of the Crown."
  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 to 12. I declare an interest as an NHS clinician in Wales.
  We had an interesting and informed debate on the proposals for England. As the Bill applies to England and Wales, Amendments Nos. 7 to 12 reflect Amendment No. 1.
  The border between England and Wales can be considered to be a semi-permeable membrane, with a flow of patients in both directions. So arrangements must allow a reciprocity of provision. The philosophy behind the amendments is summed up in a statement by Tim Rogerson of the University of Wales College of Medicine, who is president of medicine, nursing,
  994
  physiotherapy, dentistry, occupational therapy, radiography and operating department professionals. He said:
  "I do not want to spend the next 40 years of my career within an NHS that is used as a political football. We need a level of independence comparable to that of the Bank of England. That would allow leadership by the people who actually know where it should go. Without this independence, then our deep-seated loyalty to the NHS will be drastically weakened".
  Such a sentiment was separately and independently expressed and endorsed at the conference of Welsh LMCs last night. The various short-term, simplistic, political headline targets that we have all seen set for the NHS have failed. Delivery of health care is complex, rapidly changing and subject to global as well as local influences.
  There is much that is good in Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested, there is much benefit from local consultation, and that occurs. Twenty two local health boards are proposed and, fortunately, they will be coterminous with local authorities—which will provide an excellent opportunity for preventive medicine and long-term care support.
  Amendment No. 7 names the body that should oversee health service reorganisation in Wales, functioning on behalf of the Crown to depoliticise day-to-day running of the NHS. Amendment No. 8 outlines the board for the Welsh agency and Amendment No. 9 outlines the fund ions—principally in relation to local health boards. The local health groups have been in existence for two years and are functioning well in what they do but are still learning their role and evolving. They cannot take on the huge number of functions about to be devolved to them and have themselves declared that they are under enormous time pressure to take on those functions.
  General practitioners have wanted a primary care directorate in Wales, but agreement to it is now in doubt. The directorates proposed through the Assembly are directorates for renewal, policy, finance, quality, human resources and facilities. The fear is that without a single agency that will result in fragmentation and duplication of work and duplication of decision-making processes. In fact, there will be loss of expertise and of the collective memory. It is the collective memory that safeguards patients. The reorganisation is also resulting in the loss of senior, experienced personnel.
  Last night, a motion was passed unanimously at the conference of Welsh LMCs stating the need for a,
  "significant body to handle contractor services in Wales to protect both professional interests and those of patients".
  An example is the Exeter computer system, which administers patient registration, cervical cytology recall, breast test Wales recall and other items of patient monitoring. The GPC Wales and directors of contractor services are concerned that fragmentation constitutes considerable risk to patient care and loss of continuity in registration of patients and patient records. That is just one system at risk under fragmentation of the system. Several hundred

  995
  statutory functions currently undertaken by health authorities in Wales will he devolved or taken in centrally—although that remains undecided.
  I turn briefly to secondary and tertiary care. The Bill contains enabling clauses. The Minister for Health and Social Services, Jane Hutt, proposed that the National Assembly for Wales confirm key proposals that included strengthening the Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales as the basis for an all-Wales, arm's length commissioning body, commissioning tertiary services and with enhanced capacity to advise, guide and facilitate the commissioning of secondary care. For such a commission to work with local health boards, there is a need for Wales-wide co-ordination, rather than 22 local health boards individually negotiating for secondary care, and to strengthen the Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales for commissioning tertiary and specialist services. Specialist services are provided in secondary care organisations.
  The remit for the proposed all-Wales body, and indeed for an enhanced Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales, is still being worked out. It will be essential to ensure high standard, highly specialised services without unnecessary duplication, delivered as cost-effectively as possible. The organisation should then be brought under the Welsh health agency, which as I understand it is possible under the Bill's enabling provisions.
  Amendment No. 10 deals with transfer of functions and responsibilities, further to define the role of the Welsh agency. Amendment No. 11 ensures that finance is transferred, with open accounting for the way funding is spent, and that it remains within the strategic framework directed by the Assembly. Amendment No. 12 ensures that the agency reports on its functions and is fully accountable. It will he up to the health committee in the National Assembly for Wales to question how the agency administers its function and ensure that it has evaluated the system of delivery, with outcomes data collected systematically and consistently to expand the evidence base.
  Overall, such a Welsh agency would have clearer accountability and protect the service from "reorganisation fever" and resultant "reorganisation fatigue". Seven is a mystical number, deemed to be lucky. There are seven days in the week, seven ages of man and seven deadly sins. The intention behind the amendment is to protect the service from management reorganisation for at least seven years and allow evolution of delivery systems. Meaningful comparisons of outcomes can then be evaluated between the regions of England and Wales. I beg to move.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: I feel rather like Professor Tom Rogerson, who, from what the noble Baroness said, appears to be the professor of almost every speciality. This is the third Bill on which I have spoken this week. We have dealt with education and the police
  996
  and are now dealing with health from a Welsh perspective. In each case, the English provisions seemed to be trying to give the Secretary of State more and more power and remove a degree of accountability.
  In education and health, we in Wales have a far more transparent and accountable body in which decisions can be discussed; in which there is a subject committee on health, for example, that discusses health issues and questions the Minister; where matters can be considered in full plenary session; and so on. My suggestion that the Home Office might like to devolve some powers to Wales was greeted as if it were the end of civilisation by a Minister. That bastion is yet to fall.
  In Wales, I am happy to say that in the Bill we have achieved a structure different from that in England and far more satisfactory. I regret that I must oppose the amendment. It was in fact our policy and written into the partnership agreement with Labour in Wales that there should be no further organisational change to the National Health Service, so that we could concentrate on delivering services. To use the expression of the noble Baroness, we were fed up with moving the deck chairs and thought that we ought to do something about the engine and get the ship moving in the right direction.
  As the Labour government in Wales in partnership with us wanted to abolish health authorities, we considered those proposals with two principles in mind. The first was a desire to strengthen local decision-making and the second to strengthen an all-Wales strategic approach to commissioning health services, especially secondary and tertiary care. After discussion with the Minister in Wales, the Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales seemed to be a body that could deal with the problems of commissioning specialised health services on an all-Wales basis. We thought that it should have a rather wider remit, providing technical advice and support to the local health boards on commissioning of services, and further independent and impartial advice.
  The Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales having been set up and running, it seems unnecessary to put in place between it and the National Assembly, with its open accountability to which I have already referred, a further body—such as that proposed in the amendments—mirroring the English system where the constitutional structure is now so different. Consequently, our view is that the structures in Wales, whereby decisions have been devolved and power placed in the hands of GPs, community nurses and health workers through the local boards, mean that the Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales can deal with the overall, strategic role for which the LMC resolution passed last night seemed to be calling. On these Benches, given the proliferation of acronyms, we have discussed what an LMC is, but I am sure that we shall be told in due course.
  While appreciating the spirit in which the noble Baroness moves the amendment—namely, to check the accumulation of powers in the hands of the

  997
  Secretary of State in England—we consider it inappropriate in Wales and we on these Benches cannot support the amendment.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I apologise for having used an acronym without first defining it. LMC stands for local medical committee. It is the committee made up of general practitioners across Wales.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: First, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on bringing forward these proposed clauses. They are similar to those put down by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. However, there are significant differences. The thrust of the debate has been slightly different. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talked of the need for Wales-wide co-ordination. We have to consider the deliberations of the LMC. There is a need to address the needs of the national dimension of the NHS in Wales. That is why I have some sympathy with the thrust of the new clauses.
  There is nothing in the Bill about the Welsh national dimension. The National Assembly and the relevant Minister are symbolic of it but we know little of the detailed arrangements. We know something of the machinery set up to implement the Bill and change the present structure of the NHS in Wales. There is the Minister's own implementation group and a subsidiary group within the NHS directorate. Then there are task forces charged with recommending the shaping of transition in specific areas. All were described well by the right honourable Member for Llanelli, Mr Denzil Davies, at Second Reading in another place.
  At col. 251 of the Official Report of 20th November in another place, he said:
  "I have a splendid paper which sets out the structure and the steps necessary for implementation … The paper describes the implementation plan, and 12 bodies will be created to carry it out. We start with something called a 'national steering group' which 'oversees the process of implementation'. That is fair enough, but we then have an implementation group that 'oversees the management of the implementation'. I am not sure what the difference between management and 'the process of implementation' entails".
  He then talks about his lack of understanding of the jargon and says:
  "In addition to the implementation group, there will be nine task and finish groups. Apparently, they will 'scope' the implementation".
  Mr Davies complains that he has not heard of the verb "to scope" before. It is all very amusing. His last comment bears repeating. He says:
  "So we start with a process that is followed by the management and then the scoping of the implementation. At the end of the day, when the 12 groups have sat down and done their work, we have 52 bodies plus the Committees of the National Assembly and its bureaucracy to control and administer the health service for a small nation of 3 million people".
  Assuming that the structural changes go according to plan, what will be the final controlling body at the top which will perform the functions described in the new clauses and possibly others that the Assembly may
  998
  find necessary? We have not been enlightened on that point. There is nothing much about it in the Bill. Will those nine task groups, the implementation group and the scoping groups stay on and run the NHS in Wales from day to day? All we know is what we heard from the Minister for Health in Wales, Jane Hutt. She said that there was a complex web—I was struck by her description—of bodies at the top of t he NHS in Wales. That was her vision of the future.
  It has always been recognised that there are certain aspects of the NHS that are best planned and provided nationally. At the time of the reorganisation in the early 1970s a central body, the common services agency, was set up to provide hospital buildings and technical services. The case for such a national organisation as the most economic and effective provider of certain services remains strong. Many other activities demand uniformity and standardisation which only a national body can supply. There is the purchasing of drugs. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to IT. Health and well-being strategies referred to in the Bill will be evolved by local partnerships between the 22 local health boards, local authorities and trusts. Someone has to give direction to those bodies so that there is some identity between the different strategies in different areas.
  Devolution of power and responsibility is all very well but it is generally accepted that it has to be supervised, guided and regulated; otherwise there will be an excessive, confusing patchwork. There will be alarming gaps in provision and other defects.
  The only further piece of enlightenment that we have had is from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Wales Office, Mr Touhig, in the fourth sitting of Standing Committee A on this Bill on 29th November. He made great play of the fact that,
  "the Assembly views the strengthened directorate as part of the new relationship that will be developed with the NHS. It will ensure that a concerted effort is made at national and local level to deliver local services that provide national standards of care".— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, Commons, 29/11/01; col. 85.]
  So there is recognition at least that there is a national dimension to the NHS in Wales as well as the local, devolved level. But we have nothing about that national dimension within this Bill.
  The biggest hurdle facing the new clauses is that they involve creating another quango, albeit an assembly quango. Some of us will know that the Assembly has a heritage of antipathy against quangos even though the Labour Party has created quite a few in its time—and very good quangos they have been. The Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales have been greatly valued. The local health boards will be quangos of a kind. However, some form of national agency—perhaps not so much a corporate body, as suggested in the amendments, but on the lines of the agencies with which we are more familiar in Wales—would be preferable to control by politically driven committees. As Members will know, there have already been complaints that Assembly Ministers bypass their official bodies—quangos such as the Arts

  999
  Council—and exercise personal power and patronage. Furthermore, as Assembly Ministers, they have the right to do so, I understand.
  I suspect that the Minister will say that we are all being impatient when we want to see the national dimension of the NHS represented by the Assembly and the Minister and that we should await the draft NHS Bill for Wales, promised in the Queen's Speech, to see the final shape of the NHS. Surely, however, the Minister can give us some idea of the thinking of the Assembly government on such issues and say a little more about that complex web, as Jane Hutt described the arrangements at national level.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I feel that I have made this point on many occasions when speaking for the Government on policy in Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked whose role it was to supervise the Assembly. The position, under the devolution settlement, is that supervising, guiding, monitoring, criticising, complaining and holding to account the Members of the Assembly is the task of those who are fortunate enough to live in the Principality. The Assembly serves them.
  I accept the freedom and pleasure that people take from living and working on either side of Offa's Dyke. Those who live on one side do not, at the moment, have the benefit of regional devolution; those who live on the more democratically accountable side of Offa's Dyke do. In that sense, I accept that, for the purposes of social life, work and healthcare, it may be a semi-permeable membrane, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, said. Politically, however, one side is far stronger than the other.
  The new clauses would place responsibility for the management of the NHS in Wales in the hands of a new agency set up for that purpose. As noble Lords have recognised, the proposal is similar to those contained in Amendments Nos. 1 to 6. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has just provided admirable evidence and argument as to why an agency for England should not be established. Many of the arguments are similar for Wales, and Members of the Committee will be grateful to hear that I do not intend to repeat them all. I shall concentrate instead on the additional defects in the principle of the arrangement proposed in the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the other amendments to which she spoke.
  The Wales-only clauses in the Bill involve a new assertion of the National Assembly's direct democratic control of its health responsibilities. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The establishment of local health boards in Wales will enable the Assembly to take a major step forward to renewing the NHS in Wales. It will develop the local health group model and will pave the way to achieving the aims of the NHS Plan in Wales, Improving Health in Wales, published by the Assembly on 2nd February, 2001. The proposals for structural change have been the subject of full and open consultation in Wales. The strengthening of local
  1000
  health groups, allied with a new sense of leadership, direction and oversight of the NHS on the part of the National Assembly for Wales, will deliver a key part of the NHS Plan in Wales, namely, an organisation that is strengthened locally and nationally. That will follow the abolition of health authorities in Wales by 31st March, 2003.
  Creating an additional health service agency for Wales would pose a serious risk of over-centralisation and would impose a centralised model of control over the whole system. That begins to answer some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. It is the opposite of what we are trying to create in Wales. The national and local accountabilities and functions are clear. The Assembly will provide strategic direction and leadership on health policies, standards, resourcing and so on. Local health boards, in partnership with local authorities and other key stakeholders, will secure and deliver healthcare in their localities.
  To the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, I say that the Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales will provide specialist advice and guidance, and the Assembly regional offices will maintain a visible local presence and act as a source of information and advice. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, in describing the complex web, was describing a range of groups that were asked to help implement the NHS Plan in Wales. They are completing their tasks and are being wound up. The implementation of the structural reform is now a management-led exercise, run in partnership by the Assembly, the NHS and the authorities. I hope that that clarifies what the Minister, Jane Hutt, meant when she spoke to Peers from all parties.
  The role of the Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales is to be strengthened to provide an all-Wales, arms-length commissioning body to deal with tertiary and other highly specialised acute services. The commission's activities will be based on the needs expressed by local health boards and will work for local health boards and the Assembly. Technical advice and guidance for NHS Wales will also be available from the commission. As in England, the real power and resources in the NHS in Wales will move to the front line. From next April, local health boards, involving professionals and patients, will be up and running in all parts of Wales.
  The Bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to the principle of devolution. The National Assembly for Wales continues to develop policies that are distinctive to Wales, reflecting different local and national conditions and perspectives. I recommend that the House do not accept the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Were she to feel that she could withdraw the amendment, I should hope that, if she had any further detailed questions, she would not hesitate to seek clarification between Committee stage and Report.
  7 p.m.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I thank all those who contributed to this debate and addressed the issues I raised. Perhaps I might briefly respond to some of the comments.
  The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out that we have open debate in Wales and have benefited greatly from the National Assembly for Wales. The partnership arrangement opposed further reorganisation and that brought a sigh of relief from within the profession. The Specialised Health Service Commission for Wales should certainly have a greater remit, which is needed to ensure tertiary highly specialised services and secondary care. However, it does not ensure consistency of standards across primary healthcare and the delivery of the statutory functions around Wales with a degree of equity.
  The reassurance of a single primary care directorate may solve the anxieties of the local medical committees. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, appreciated the thrust of the debate in Wales; that it is different and that there is a need to ensure national consistency and equity of primary care delivery across Wales.
  There is a deep-seated concern that the changes are too far and too fast, and with that uncertainty goes demoralisation. Purchasing drugs and IT systems should be standardised. In a nation of 3 million people we surely could have a single computerised system to ensure laboratory results are available as they emerge from the autoanalyser and as a patient moves between different sectors of the service. We have an information system for clinical oncology developed and run by my trust which is an example of good practice. Unfortunately, it deals only with cancer patients.
  I am not proposing a further quango for the sake of it. The corporate body may not be the best solution. But I hope that the debate will inform the NHS Bill for Wales. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, kindly replied in detail to the points I raised. The Assembly will be held to account by the people of Wales. The Assembly acts on behalf of the people of Wales. That is why there needs to be clear blue water between the people and the service's daily organisation.
  The intentions behind the NHS Plan are to be welcomed and can be achieved by evolution, not revolution. We have severe shortages in primary care among professionals in Wales, and there is concern that primary care professionals cannot take on too much too quickly. I am grateful for the debate and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 8 to 12 not moved.]
  Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 13:
  Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
  "DUTY TO PREVENT AGE DISCRIMINATION
  (1) It shall be the duty of any person or body exercising functions or otherwise providing services within the National Health Service to prevent discrimination by reason of age against any class of persons receiving services from the National Health Service except where clinically justified.
  (2) It shall be the duty of any prescribed NHS body to publish an annual statement of the measures they have taken to prevent discrimination on the grounds of age against any class of persons receiving services from the National Health Service."
  The noble Lord said: Aficionados of health Bills—that word is not out of place; we have had a health Bill every year since this Government came to office—will recognise that Amendment No. 13 is similar to amendments tabled to each of the previous health Bills. I make no apology for that. One in five of us is aged 55 or over and 42 per cent of NHS resources is devoted to older people. If we do not get our health service right in relation to older people, we are failing horribly not only in human terms but also in the waste of resources.
  In the recent past the Secretary of States was quoted as saying,
  "I will not tolerate anything which smacks of age discrimination in the NHS".
  But the fact is that this Government, to date, have not done nearly enough to prevent it. Before they came into power in 1997 they promised an investigation into age discrimination in the NHS. The grounds for such an investigation were obvious. It was clear that there had been restrictions on heart bypass operations, heart transplants and cardiac rehabilitation for older people. Kidney dialysis and transplants had been refused to patients over the age of 70 and there are no public health fitness targets for those over the age of 65 in Our Healthier Nation.
  That is just a snapshot of some of the problems that could have been investigated at the time. But that inquiry never took place. A succession of reports from voluntary organisations and official bodies since 1997 have shown the presence of age discrimination in the health service. The national confidential inquiry into perioptic deaths in 1999 referred to staff shortages and lack of experience leading directly to the deaths of older people.
  An Age Concern survey of 1,000 patients at the end of 1999 found that health was a key concern of older people. But its survey of GPs at the same time found that 77 per cent said that rationing on the basis of age was taking place in the NHS. Another report by Age Concern, Speaking Out, which was published in November 2000, showed that ill-treatment and discrimination against the elderly was still rife at that time.
  A report published in 2000 by the Association of Community Health Councils on accident and emergency departments demonstrated horrendous discrimination against older people. Elderly patients are rushed to hospital but are then left to wait on average far longer than younger patients to die on trolleys.
  The King's Fund report, Old Habits Die Hard: Tackling Age Discrimination in Health and Social Care, was published earlier this year. So it is not just reports of 1999 and 2000 which illustrate age discrimination; the King's Fund report was published earlier this year. It illustrates the belief of senior managers that age discrimination is endemic in the health service. Three out of four senior health and social care managers

  1003
  believe that age discrimination exists in their local services. Help the Aged's recent report, Age Discrimination in Public Policy, is a review of evidence of discrimination and was published this month.
  The National Service Framework for Older People by itself is not enough. It is welcome and of course the Government are relying on it as an alternative to legislation. But we need to create a positive legal duty and a positive culture of care. It is not only a matter of resources; above all, it is a matter of respect. That should be enshrined in legislation.
  As I have said, we on these Benches have argued on previous occasions, both in respect of the Health and Social Care Act and the Care Standards Act, that such a duty should be on the face of legislation. This Bill presents another opportunity for the Government to accept the need for a clear duty not to discriminate. It is clear that the voluntary approach is not working. Older people are still receiving second rate care. We need to ensure, as a matter of legislation, that training takes place and staff in the NHS recognise the need to comply. I beg to move.
  Lord Turnberg: I am sorry that I am unable to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I say I am sorry because, in my advancing years, I am second to none in my wish to see age discrimination banished from all walks of life, not least in the health service. So I am right behind, indeed somewhat ahead, of the noble Lord in the principle behind the amendment.
  My problem is in working out whether this principle should be on the face of the Bill. I fear that it should not, otherwise we would have to include discrimination on all sorts of grounds—colour, creed, race, religion, all of which are vitally important. Discrimination on any of those grounds is equally abhorrent.
  We would have to be clear, therefore, that discrimination of any type is not approved. So, much as I should like to see this provision on the face of the Bill, I regret that I cannot support it.
  Baroness Pitkeathley: I too must speak against this amendment, not because I am in any way opposed to age discrimination but for the reasons put forward by my noble friend.
  Discrimination of any kind is utterly unacceptable in the NHS. However, amendments to a Bill is probably not the way to ensure that we tackle age or any other kind of discrimination. A framework already exists for tackling this problem in the National Service Framework for Older People. There is already evidence that that is working well for the benefit of older people.
  In my prolonged stay in hospital last year, I saw no evidence at all of any kind of discrimination against older people because each patient—at least in my ward in the Middlesex hospital—was treated with dignity, respect and courtesy as well as with clinical expertise, based not on the patient's age but on their clinical
  1004
  needs. How that operates in the ward is not by legislation, but by the training, experience and attitude of all staff. Attitudes are set and changed by committed leadership and example and by staff working in a climate which is so respectful of individual patients that discrimination on any ground is simply unacceptable.
  Earl Howe: I have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment. The Government's national service framework for older people, published a year ago, was filled to the brim with sound principles and good, sensible practice. It was widely and deservedly welcomed among managers in the health arena, and indeed in social care. Nevertheless, when one speaks to many people in the health service there is a perception that the legacy of ageist attitudes from the past continues to cling on, if only in odd corners.
  I admit that evidence of ageism is elusive and anecdotal. But the feeling emerged very strongly from the recent King's Fund study that unless there are the proper resources and support available for managers trying to implement the national service framework, it would be very difficult to promote and foster what is quite a complex policy on as wide and as thorough a basis as is necessary. Rates of progress in implementing the national service framework vary considerably around the country. The King's Fund argued that motivation to tackle age discrimination would be a great deal strengthened by the creation of a legal requirement to promote age equality. One has at least to stop and listen to that view coming from that source.
  Against that backdrop it has to be said that there is even the odd Cassandra taking part in this wider debate. Recently, Malcolm Johnson, who is director of the International Institute on Health and Ageing at Bristol University, expressed the view that the Government's pledge to stamp out ageism in the NHS is doomed to failure because of a lack of staff and resources. For example, he has spoken about the low priority generally given to chronic illnesses and the lack of checks and screenings for older people as evidence that ageism in health care is endemic. He was also quoted as saying that the training of most practitioners contains very little about older people and that in the minds of healthcare professionals there is an inbuilt hierarchy of priorities which is hard to shift. Those are the things which he said stand in the way of rooting out ageism.
  I do not believe that I would classify myself as quite such a pessimist because I believe that clinicians and managers are much more alive to the issues of discrimination than they perhaps were a few years ago. But I believe that there is still work to do. We need to involve older people themselves in looking at the various policies which have a disproportionate effect on older people and hear what they think about them. We need to examine those specialist services which are aimed mainly at older people and make sure that there are no unacceptable disparities around the country in

  1005
  terms of access to treatment and support. Incidentally, I wonder how the new NHS structures will facilitate that process of comparison.
  I turn to a particular hobbyhorse of mine. We need to look at hospices and specialist palliative care services, where the degree of public funding has been allowed to slip in recent years to levels that make it very difficult for many hospices to continue functioning. I hope that the Minister will be able to give his own insight into these very important issues.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps I may make a small additional point. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and other speakers, have referred to the need for equal treatment in the sense of equal respect given to patients of different ages. But that is not necessarily what we are talking about here. On a number of occasions we have discussed in this House the problem of ensuring that older people get the right food when in hospital. It is to that kind of thing as well as to those matters raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that those responsible should direct their attention when spending 75 per cent of the funds directed at NHS secondary care. Their influence could be very strong in ensuring that hospital trusts in particular pay attention to the special needs of older people and not so much to the need for respect.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I wish to speak very briefly to this amendment because it highlights an extremely important issue, which is that discrimination against any group cannot be condoned in any way. Sadly, with limited resources, there is always some form of rationing. But it really must not be at the expense of any single group.
  Perhaps may take up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The hospice service is now providing a core service to patients, which relieves the NHS of some statutory functions, yet it does not even receive 50 per cent funding for the core service delivery of specialist palliative care. It is not frills in the service, but core care for people in need. It is worth remembering that money spent on small items—such as ensuring that patients have the dentures they need, as these are rapidly realigned if they do not fit; that they have the mobility aids that they require installed in their own homes to allow them to get home—could result in cost savings at the end of the day rather than increased expenditure.
  Therefore, I suggest that the spirit of the amendment is excellent but, sadly, it addresses age only. There are many other groups within our population who have disabilities of different kinds and who also experience a degree of discrimination or who believe that they are discriminated against. Possibly, the proposed patients' fora and the community health councils, which I am delighted to say we are retaining in Wales, should be charged with ensuring specifically that this type of discrimination does not occur.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the Minister replies can he answer one question for me? In a number
  1006
  of GP practices I know, when one telephones for an appointment one is asked for one's date of birth. Is that usual and what is the reason for it?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: From nodding heads around the Chamber, apparently it is quite usual for some practices to ask for that information. I do not know the reason for it. It may be sought as part of the identification. Quite often one is asked for a date of birth, along with the postcode, for identification purposes. I cannot supply any more information on that.
  This is a very important debate. Noble Lords have debated the issue of discrimination against older people in the health service on a number of occasions. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who a few minutes ago was an arch decentraliser, now in a very centralist directional mode—
  Lord Clement-Jones: But the noble Lord realises that on devolution of any kind national standards are of great importance.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am glad for that support of government policy. This is a very important matter. I believe that the government's approach, which is essentially through the national service framework which many speakers have mentioned, is the right way forward. That framework sets out a number of standards for older people. The first states,
  "NHS services will be provided, regardless of age, on the basis of clinical need alone. Social care services will not use age in their eligibility criteria or policies to restrict access to available services".
  It seems to me that that sets the philosophy under which we expect services to be provided for older people, either in the National Health Service or in social care. It is one thing to say that but it is another to ensure that it happens in practice. The national service framework contains a positive action strategy to ensure that older people are never unfairly discriminated against in accessing National Health Service or social care services. We shall be monitoring compliance with that strategy. In our view, delivering on the national service framework for older people makes the duty to prevent age discrimination in healthcare unnecessary, although of course, I am sympathetic to the overall aim that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is trying to achieve.
  We have recently completed an analysis of the audits of age-related policies required by the framework. That has shown that age-related policies are normally based on clinical evidence. In nearly all other cases reviews of the policies are being undertaken or action has already been taken.
  Noble Lords have referred to the excellent King's Fund report on age discrimination, and as was recognised in that report, there is little consensus or clarity on the meaning and consequences of age discrimination. I have no doubt that more work needs to be done as the NSF programme develops. Guidance was issued to inform the age-related audits of written policy in the National Health Service. Additional tools need to be developed to assist in the auditing of policies

  1007
  on implicit age discrimination and on the national benchmark of access to the services and treatment that are important for older people.
  Age discrimination is complex and cannot be addressed overnight. It may manifest itself in a number of different ways—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones on this. Those ways might include low overall rates of provision of those interventions that are relatively more important for older people, such as hip and knee replacement, cataract surgery, occupational therapy, chiropody, community equipment, assistive technology, hearing aids and National Health Service dentistry, to acknowledge the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Age discrimination may show itself in low relative rates of access of older people to specialist services compared with younger people or refusal of particular treatments, such as revascularisation or expensive drugs. There may be low referral rates to particular services or, indeed, unthinking or insensitive treatment from individual members of staff. We would all have to acknowledge that there are examples of that within the National Health Service. I should make it clear that the aim of the national service framework is not to favour older people over other age groups but to ensure that they are treated as individuals. Some progress has been made.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, talked about the issue of food in hospitals. I well recognise that that has been an issue both in terms of the nutritional value and whether older people actually eat enough. Past evidence has shown that they do not. There is also the matter of how meals are organised on the ward and whether nursing staff monitor that individual patients are either feeding themselves or are given assistance if necessary. We are making progress. The chief nursing officer has written to individual nurses to remind them of their duties in that respect. The work that we are doing on a national menu will improve the overall substance and nutrition of the food provided in the National Health Service.
  The work on phasing out mixed-sex wards again is an example of responding to issues raised by older people. We published new guidance on resuscitation policy and we have said that decisions not to resuscitate should be made on a case-by-case basis. A blanket do-not-resuscitate policy based on a specific patient group such as older patients is unacceptable. The health service recognises that surgery is becoming safer and new techniques and treatments mean that more people can receive treatment, including older people for whom surgery may not previously have been an option.
  When breast-screening programmes were first set up in 1988 evidence suggested that older women would not accept screening invitations, so they were not included in the routine recall programme. Government-funded pilot studies have now shown that extending routine invitations for breast screening to women aged 65 to 69 is both feasible and cost-effective. Noble Lords will know that we are extending the programme as a result.
  1008
  More generally, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the question of how to involve older people in decisions about their treatment and, more generally, in ensuring that the National Health Service is fully aware of their needs. Patient forums are one way of ensuring that, close to where services are provided, there is input from older people and others to ensure that some of these issues are raised.
  On the matter of hospices and special palliative care, I acknowledge their vital role and the partnership required between the National Health Service and the independent care sector. Noble Lords will know that we have made various announcements in the past few months concerning the provision of extra resources and by encouraging the health authorities locally to develop palliative care policies in which independent care provision becomes fully part of the overall strategy and policy of that area.
  To answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, it has been confirmed that date of birth is always requested for identification only and not for any other reason.
  In conclusion, I echo the points made by my noble friends, Lord Turnberg and Lady Pitkeathley that there is all-round support for the intention behind the amendment, but I do not believe that legislation is the right route. We are making progress; there is a lot to do, but the national service framework provides the best vehicle for doing so.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I am grateful for the support—at least for the intention behind the amendment, as the Minister put it—and for the fullness of the Minister's reply.
  I confess to being slightly disappointed at the response of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, to the amendment. It is one of those tuppence coloured, penny plain issues. If I offer penny plain, which is the age discrimination issue, that is far too narrow; so it is not comprehensive enough in its anti-discrimination provisions. If I offer the tuppence coloured, which is a general duty of equity within the health service, that is far too blanket in its nature and could be shot down for being too vague and covering far too wide a group of patients. I do not think that one would win in that kind of argument, so I shall not base too much credence on the fact that a legal duty is an inappropriate way of proceeding.
  I ask those who are not in favour of a legal duty to say what they would do if I were to come back in a year's time, when I am sure we will have yet another Government health Bill, and say that the national service framework has not been working. Will the Minister say when he believes evidence of compliance will be made available under the NSF? He said that the health service would be monitoring compliance and it is therefore incumbent on Ministers to produce that evidence regularly and say when it will be available.
  I take as my model—a campaigning model to some degree—the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. He has no hesitation in bringing forward a proposition time and time again—in fact, every six months. I am being moderate in introducing mine only once a year.

  1009
  The noble Lord, Lord Morris proposes compensation for haemophilia patients who contract hepatitis C—and quite rightly. I am confident that noble Lords who are sceptical of imposing a legal duty will eventually realise that the national service framework is not enough. Let us see how the national service framework will work in practice and monitor compliance.
  The Minister himself does not appear to be too confident. Fie referred to "some progress", which is not a resounding accolade for progress on the national service framework.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I was seeking to give a realistic assessment of where the NHS had got to. I said that there were considerable challenges—all noble Lords will agree with that—but that we had made good progress in some areas, and I gave a number of examples.
  The national service framework provides the right vehicle for ensuring that appropriate action is taken, but we should not under-estimate the challenges facing the health service. That is not being complacent; that is being realistic about the real challenges.
  The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about progress and programmes. By April of this year, the agreements that need to be reached between NHS trusts and health authorities will include initial action to address any age discrimination identified and any strategic policies needed to reflect the health improvement programmes agreed for the next financial year. By October of this year, in order to facilitate comparisons across health authorities and to establish best practice benchmarks based on health outcomes and needs, an analysis of the level and patterns of services for older people will be completed. That means that local health systems from 2003–04 onwards will be able to demonstrate year-on-year improvements in moving towards those benchmarks. So, in terms of measurement, we have the right structure to enable the establishment of benchmarks and the measurement of improvement.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. Ultimately, this matter boils down to patient experience. It will not be very edifying if I come back in a year's time and say that voluntary organisations such as Age Concern and Help the Aged have reported that patient experience is still poor, and the Minister retorts to me, "No, no. All our benchmarks are in place and are being developed". Will there be tracking of patient experience and will we find out whether matters are improving?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am glad that the noble Lord has raised the question. He will probably have forgotten our intention to have national surveys of patient opinion, which will be published over the next few months. They will include national questions which will enable the comparison of trust with trust, together with local questions which individual organisations can add to the survey. That is one way in which we can pick up on some of the issues. Patient forums—which will
  1010
  enable us not only to pick up on the results of surveys but to reflect on the evidence that patient advisory and liaison services have provided within individual trusts—will also be a way in which progress can be monitored and the attention of the boards of NHS trusts drawn to particular concerns in this area.
  I reject the noble Lord's charge that we do not have a vigorous process for ensuring that this happens.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I am grateful to the Minister. That is much more satisfactory. As long as the surveys are directed specifically, among other matters, to the experience of older patients, of older people in acute hospitals, that will be entirely satisfactory. We would all welcome that. To have consistent data of that kind tracked through the years will help establish a much better basis for ensuring that we take account of patient experience.
  It has become clear in the course of the debate that the Committee does not believe that we are quite ready for legislation. However, it should be borne in mind—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to this—that it is significant that the King's Fund, having carried out its survey of health service managers, came to the conclusion that the only way to eliminate age discrimination in the health service was through legislation. That statement was not made lightly in the course of its report.
  No doubt we shall return to this matter at a future date. At this stage my amendment was designed to test the Government's resolve on the question of age discrimination. It has done so successfully and elicited a fairly full statement on the Government's current policy on eliminating age discrimination in the health service. I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, this may be an convenient moment to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to this business not before twenty-five minutes to nine. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

National Assembly for 'Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2002
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order amends the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 1999 to bring legislation governing elections to the Assembly in line with legislation for parliamentary and local government elections in Wales.

1011
These changes are required as a result of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 2000, of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001.
The main changes made by the draft order are in the following areas: to allow voters to vote by post without having to give a reason for their need to do so; to provide blind voters with a device which would assist them in voting without the assistance of a companion, if they so wish, and to allow persons with other disabilities to vote with the assistance of a companion; to ensure that the 1999 order is consistent with the new arrangements for rolling registration; to accommodate the new controls on the expenses of political parties set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; to accommodate the changes made by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 concerning the description of registered political parties and independent candidates on nomination forms and ballot papers; and to make other consequential amendments to achieve consistency with the amendments to the Representation of the People Act 1983 in relation to the conveyance of voters to polling booths and the use of school buildings as committee rooms.
Wales Office officials have worked closely with their counterparts in the Assembly on this draft order and Assembly Ministers have been kept informed. Further, the changes made by the draft order have been the subject of consultation with the Electoral Commission, which supports the proposed changes.
All these changes are important but it is likely that the changes relating to postal voting and to voters with disabilities are those which are of the widest interest. The changes will mean that postal votes are accessible to all who wish to use them. This is a positive step to encourage the electorate to take part in elections by giving them more options for voting. The changes will also mean that all voters with disabilities will now be entitled to the assistance of a companion. Previously, this assistance was available only to blind voters.
I have already mentioned that the order provides that each polling station should be equipped with a device to allow blind voters, if they so wish, to cast their votes unaided. In addition, the order provides for a large format ballot paper to be displayed to assist visually impaired voters. All these provisions are in line with those which were in force at the last general election and were well received by disabled voters.
While the draft order would make a number of important changes to the Assembly's electoral process, further changes are required. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales proposes, therefore, to bring forward a further draft order which will include new provisions relating to individual candidates' expenses, the broadcasting of local items during an election period, the publication of exit polls and false statements in nomination papers. Further consultation will be required on these topics before a further order can be drafted. The second draft order
1012
will, however, be laid before Parliament well in advance of the next Assembly elections, which will take place on 1st May 2003.
The contents of this draft order are not contentious. They bring Assembly elections into line with parliamentary and local government elections in important areas such as accessibility to postal voting and assistance for voters with disabilities. All the changes are in the interests of increasing enfranchisement, encouraging the electorate to use their vote. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her detailed exposition of the draft order and her justification of the need for it following the passage of further legislation relating to parliamentary and local government elections as outlined in the Explanatory Notes. I understand that there will be a further draft order before the next Assembly election on 1st May 2003.
The date of local government elections has been moved forward to 2004, so that it will not coincide with Assembly elections. Some believe that there are other, less noble reasons for the postponement, such as a wish to avoid facing the electors for as long as possible. Be that as it may, I believe that the reverse has happened in Scotland. The Scottish parliamentary and local government elections have been brought together, which, if we are interested in promoting voter participation, makes more sense. If the noble Baroness has a view on that, she may care to share it with us.
As a Welsh speaker, I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness that the Welsh language references in this draft order are impeccable, both in content and printing. I have only one query, to which I shall come straight away, in the hope that the Minister and her officials may be able to deal with it before the end of the debate. It relates to the new Article 50 at the top of page 6 and the power to vary provisions concerning election expenses. The new article states:
"After such consultation with the Assembly as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate, he may by order made by statutory instrument vary any of the sums to which this article applies".
Subsection (3) states that such an order,
"shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
I take it that the Secretary of State will probably be the Secretary of State for Wales, though technically it could be any other member of the Government, and that the statutory instrument will be subject to the procedures of this Parliament, not those of the Assembly. If it were not so, the annulment procedure would be difficult to operate, since this Parliament does not, so far as I am aware, involve itself with statutory instruments originating in the Assembly. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm my understanding of that procedure.

1013
There are a number of welcome improvements in this order, especially those relating to voters with disabilities and those unable to read for one reason or another. I am glad that blind people who cannot use the technology at hand can still be assisted by another person and that similar assistance will be extended to others who need it. It is important that the assisted voter should be under no duress and should be able freely to accept assistance. The officer in charge of the polling station should ensure that that happens. I know that the Secretary of State for Wales is aware of the point and is considering it with his colleagues.
There are also new provisions for proxy voting by those engaged in education. I hope that all who benefit from these arrangements will be reminded that it is an offence to vote more than once, albeit in different constituencies. That point occurred to me and was also made by the Plaid Cymru Member for Ceredigion when this order was before the 10th Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
There is some clarification on the issue of individual candidate expenditure, as opposed to party expenditure. If we are to achieve uniformity and equality of opportunity between rival candidates, further definition and firm application of the rules is required in this area. We could debate this point at great length. However, we hear in mind that a further order is to be moved relating to candidates' expenses and related matters.
Anyone who wishes can now vote by post and can change to a vote by proxy. A proxy vote can also be changed to a postal vote. I suspect that those changes will be extensively used and we hope not abused. We are all concerned about low turnout and wish to improve opportunities to vote, but we must also respect the voter's right to abstain. Abstention of itself often carries a message.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her explanation of this extremely complicated order and congratulate the draftsman on a masterly piece of drafting. So far, no one has been able to find a flaw in it.
As a member of the Welsh Assembly Commission considering proportional representation for local government elections, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that our inquiries of all 22 local authorities in Wales revealed that the members of those authorities asked that the local government elections should be separate from the Assembly elections. They requested that for a variety of reasons: first, because they wish to receive their personal mandate in the election; secondly, because so many of them, particularly in West Wales, are Independents and therefore feel that a greater distinction should be drawn between Assembly and local government elections.
I am impressed by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, approves of the Welsh. I was a pupil of his brother, a very eminent Queen's Counsel who later became a judge, and I recall that when I trailed after him in the Welsh courts where the Welsh
1014
language was being used, he would from time to time correct the interpreter. The noble Lord's language skills are absolutely without par in the whole of Wales.
With regard to the question of disability, we on these Benches welcome the extended provisions for people suffering from a variety of disabilities to be assisted in casting votes. Since those disabilities include the inability to read, perhaps we may see the end of the cross on the ballot paper and the introduction of one, two, three and four in proportional elections by single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin with the concluding point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. He may not be surprised to discover that I do not intend to be drawn into that debate today.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their compliments on the quality of the Welsh language used in the draft order. As someone whose grandfather at the age of three was beaten were he to speak in any language other than English at school, when his ow n mother tongue was Welsh, I take particular pride in it.
Both noble Lords raised the issue of postponement. That is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. Parliament gave the Assembly the necessary powers to change the years in which Welsh local elections are held. I note the views that have been expressed. However, I do not express a personal view. It is solely a matter for the Assembly.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, raised the issue of the definition of candidates' expenses. Following the enactment of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the financing and expenditure of political parties have been governed by that Act. The definition is necessary to distinguish such expenditure from that incurred by individual candidates, which is still controlled by the terms of the Assembly Elections Order. The reasoning behind the increased limits on election expenses is that the new figures bring the limits for Assembly elections into line with those for parliamentary elections.
The noble Lord also referred to new Article 50 of the 1999 order, which deals with election expenses. I can confirm that the Secretary of State's power by order to vary sums to which the article applies shall be subject to annulment pursuant to a resolution of either House of Parliament. I can tell the noble Lord that the statutory instrument will be subject to the procedures of this Parliament, not those of the Assembly; otherwise, as the noble Lord observed, the annulment process would be difficult to operate.
Both noble Lords mentioned absent voters and proxy votes. When the order comes into force, students will be able to request a postal vote without giving reasons. They will also be able to vote by proxy and, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, change the vote from postal to proxy and back. I note his view about abstention being the right of individuals. We all agree that people should not vote twice. Indeed, this process will be jealously and carefully monitored.

1015
I should also tell noble Lords that the case for disabled voters is recognised as being very important. There are already some safeguards to protect individual voters with disability from coercion in the free exercise of the franchise. It is an offence under Article 87 of the 1999 order. We shall, course, raise the issue with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in order to consider whether any additional safeguards would be desirable.
I hope that I have answered all the points raised by both noble Lords. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum Support (Repeal) Order 2002
7.52 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brightonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Motion on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rooker. The order, which was laid before Parliament on 25th February, repeals Section 96(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. That section states that asylum support provided by the Secretary of State under subsection (1)(a) or (b), or subsection (2), of Section 96 must not be wholly or mainly made by way of payments to a supported person or to his dependants, except in exceptional cases. The provision effectively bars the Home Secretary from making subsistence payments to asylum seekers in cash, except to a limited extent.
As noble Lords will know, the Home Secretary announced in another place last October the Government's intention to move away from the provision of subsistence payments by way of vouchers. In order to achieve this, Section 96(3) must first be repealed. If it is not, the present voucher system cannot be ended. Subject to parliamentary approval of this order, it is proposed that payments in cash will start for all asylum seekers supported by NASS from 8th April.
In the short term, these payments will be made using the existing system for the issue of vouchers. It is our aim to use the new application registration card as a means of identifying those eligible for receipt of payment. We have decided to introduce cash payments now for two reasons. First, we believe that the change to cash payments now will enable us better to manage the transition to application registration card-based payments. Secondly—and, most importantly, for asylum seekers themselves—moving to cash payments now means that they will be able to spend their money where they like and will not be limited to the choice of shops where they could use the vouchers.
It will be necessary to make consequential amendments to the Asylum Support Regulations 2000. The necessary amending regulations were laid before Parliament on 6th March. I beg to move.
1016
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, this change is welcome. It was always likely that the use of vouchers would prove problematic; and, indeed, that has proved to be the case. It was occasionally embarrassing for individuals, and often created quite unreal and artificial difficulties. As I say, we welcome the proposals. We shall be very happy to see the amended regulations in place.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the explanation he has offered to the House. It is a good decision, and one which we on this side of House certainly welcome. When the Immigration and Asylum Act was debated in this House, the Minister will have noticed that we opposed the voucher scheme. We consistently argued that it was unworkable, and also pointed out that such a provision was likely to disadvantage those who were in receipt of it.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. However, I do not expect him to have all the answers. If he has not, he can write to me. Can the Minister say what is the precise timetable for the implementation of this statutory instrument? The noble Lord, explained the transitional arrangement and what would be likely to happen, but it would also he helpful to know whether the level of financial support will be the same as that applied to ordinary members of the community. Asylum seekers need to be equated on the same basis. All the organisations concerned with asylum and child care have asked for equivalence. Can the Minister assure me that there will be no slippage, and can he confirm that children will remain on the same rate?
As regards adults, we note that adult asylum seekers do not have to meet certain utility bills. It would be helpful to know the basis of the decision to restrict payment at 70 per cent, and how it was reached. Further, will the Minister consult immigration and asylum organisations to discuss the appropriate level of payment? Finally, we also need to address the question of what would happen to asylum seekers who do not take the accommodation offered but choose instead to stay with friends or family. We very much hope that their cases will not be prejudiced by such action. It is still cheaper for the state to accept such an arrangement.
As I said earlier, I do not expect the Minister to have all the answers to my questions. This has been a very sad state of affairs, despite the best intentions of the Government. The system has not worked, but I acknowledge that it took a good deal of courage actually to reverse the original decision. We certainly welcome this move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am in the enviable position of being able to welcome the welcomes; indeed, I am delighted that that is the case. I shall try to address the precise points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Of course, it is the case that the Liberal Democrats argued that the scheme

1017
was unworkable. I am not so sure that it was "unworkable", because other issues impacted upon its implementation. This meant that the Government decided, quite rightly, to move away from the cautious approach of a voucher scheme to a cash-based system. Improvements in technology and the long-term desire to introduce a system of smart cards, and so on, will enable the Government to make a significant impact on the potential for fraud within the system.
The noble Lord asked about a timetable. It is our intention to introduce cash payments on 8th April. By the end of September it is hoped to start the gradual introduction of the application registration card as a means of enabling asylum seekers to obtain cash payments through their post office. The scheme is relatively simple to follow. At present, asylum seekers will be able to attend the local post office with their book, their chitty, or their slips. In the interim, they will be given vouchers, which they will pass straight back over the counter and receive cash. That is how the process is intended to work. In the longer term, it is the Government's intention to introduce a form of smart card. Those making in-country applications will be able to access that smart card system from the outset.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised a point about utilities and the relationship between those and the adult cash payment rate. The calculation has been made that the discount, the 30 per cent, is approximate to the value of housing accommodation which is fully furnished and has all the necessary utensils and furniture in place. It is felt that 70 per cent is a fair reflection of the true cash need of asylum seekers and that the 30 per cent covers utility payments such as rent and so on. It is assumed that that is all included.
The noble Lord made a final point about those staying with families and friends. That matter is under review at all times. It is currently the case that a large number of asylum seekers stay with friends and family. It is the Government's intention in the long term to provide an estate so that individual asylum seekers can be properly accommodated and worked with in terms of processing their asylum application. We believe that that is the right way forward. It was announced in the White Paper and it is the Government's desire to proceed in that way, but the noble Lord's point is an important one to reflect on and take on board.
With those comments and, I hope, having answered the points raised by the noble Lord, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2002
8.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
1018
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the regulations were laid before the House on 12th February. They introduce new levels of fees which, if approved, will come into effect on 1st April. They were approved in another place on 6th March.
The principle which underpins the planning application regime is that individual users and potential beneficiaries of the development control system, rather than local taxpayers in general, should meet the costs incurred by local planning authorities in handling and determining planning applications. Local authorities' work includes activities such as carrying out statutory notification, consultation, and publicity so that interested parties can comment on the development proposal. It also includes writing to applicants and objectors, and the time spent by officers and elected members in considering a case.
The Government's policy is that, in aggregate across England, the income generated by planning application fees should cover the estimated total costs incurred by local planning authorities. Income and estimated costs have been monitored annually to inform decisions about the level of fees. Fees were raised gradually over a number of years until, in 1997, they recovered what was thought to be all of local authorities' estimated costs of determining planning applications. There has been no increase in fees since then because there has been no hard evidence on which to base a further change.
However, as the basis for estimated costs dated from a 1992 study, my department commissioned research in June—the year given in the briefing is 2002, which cannot be right; it must be 2001—to look afresh at the extent to which the costs incurred by local authorities is being recovered by the fees paid by applicants. This included a comprehensive survey of local planning authorities. It concluded that, in aggregate, income is about 14 per cent adrift from costs for most local planning authorities.
The Government therefore propose an increase of approximately 14 per cent in fees so that, in aggregate across the country, local authorities' fee income better matches the cost of determining planning applications. This is an interim measure, pending a fundamental review of the fees regime announced in our planning Green Paper.
The increase in fees proposed in the draft regulations before the House keeps planning application fees at a modest level for developers, while enabling local authorities to recover a fair proportion of the costs incurred. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have little to say on this matter save to welcome the regulations. As a present member of a planning committee, I know that the increase in fees will be welcomed. Even more welcome in the not-too-distant future will, I hope, be

1019
the wider review of planning fees and the possibility that they will not be restricted and work on a ceiling basis. That would have a great deal of merit, bearing in mind that there will be different associated costs in different areas.
I am sure that at some date we shall debate the Green Paper on planning. I want to mention the important element that in some boroughs a great deal of time is spent on discussion by officers on an application to bring it through to a satisfactory development. Sometimes, that takes longer than the normal time-frame that would be expected. In the end, it usually results in a far better development. The fees will contribute to only a small extra amount of officer work, but the addition can only be welcome. That is all that I can offer the Minister at this stage.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the dinner hour business seems to have provoked a great outbreak of amity in the Chamber‡ I, too, want to thank the Minister. I declare an interest as president of the Town and Country Planning Association.
The Minister referred to the fees covering the cost. Incidentally, his honourable friend told another place that the research was commissioned in June 2000. I do not suppose that that alters the effect of the research itself. I find it difficult to believe that that is the case. Perhaps I should have warned the Minister about this question. There is no confirmation, but I wonder whether that includes forward planning as well as development control. It does not seem to me that that can possibly be the case. That whole area of planning work—developing UDPs, the new development framework, action plans or whatever it will be—is vital to underpin effective development control.
A constitutional issue arises; namely, whether planning is a public service and whether it should he paid for by applicants. It is in everyone's interests that the outcome is a good one. There seems almost to be a view—I do not suggest that it is shared in this Chamber—that all development is bad. That is perhaps a matter for our debate on the Green Paper, the issue of tariffs and so on.
Clearly, there are some developments—particularly potentially lucrative commercial developments—where the cost is disproportionate, even to the fee that will be charged under the new arrangements. There is a distinction to be drawn between such applications and residential applications. A development should carry far more of the cost.
I hold the view that it should also be possible for local authorities to charge for pre-application advice. That is probably because the case of Richmond Upon Thames ex parte McCarthy and Stone is written on my heart—or possibly still sticks in my throat.
It is the case that planning departments up and down the country are under-funded and under-staffed. Anything that can be done to rectify the situation will be very welcome. As the noble Baroness, Lady
1020
Hanham, said, these issues and many more are raised by the Green Paper. For the moment, I do not oppose the order.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of both noble Baronesses. Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about discussions with officers which continue for some time. It is similar to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about pre-application discussions. They are important; they are beneficial. They are not charged for. Current legislation does not permit local authorities to charge for this facility. We recognise the benefits of such discussions. They can help guide the applicant through the process, they can improve the application, and can result in better quality applications.
We recognise as well the resource burden that this places on local authorities. We intend to enable local authorities to levy appropriate charges for this service. It does not bring the comfort that the noble Baroness would have hoped for in relation to the decided case to which she referred, but I believe it deals with the principle.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for correcting me. The research was commissioned in June 2000. She asked whether there was research on costs being recovered in relation to development planning activities as well as development control. There is not; it was only in relation to development control. She then wondered whether planning was such an important function that one should seek to recover all the costs from the applicants. As I have said, that relates only to development control rather than development planning. She also correctly pointed out that some substantial applications are made by well funded developers for which significantly greater application fees could be paid. That would probably be welcomed by the developers if it had the effect of improving the culture of planning.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.11 to 8.35 p.m.]

National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 1 [English Health Authorities: change of name]:
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to "Health" and insert "From 1st April 2003,"
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, my principal purpose is to provide the Minister with an opportunity to flesh out in more detail than we currently have the thinking behind the far-reaching

1021
structural changes that the Bill proposes for the NHS. In the process, however, I should like to raise some major question marks over the wisdom of these changes.
The restructuring of the NHS that the Government are proposing was foreshadowed in the document Shifting the Balance of Power, published just over 18 months ago. I am the first to acknowledge the significance of these changes for the internal management of the health service. They will entail considerable upheaval for those who administer and run the service—the biggest upheaval for more than 25 years. Their ostensible purpose, if we take our cue from what Ministers have told us, is to devolve power and decision-making downwards from Whitehall, to create shorter chains of command, to introduce greater local responsiveness within the service and to cut bureaucracy. All those objectives are entirely laudable. The question we need to pose as we go through Committee is whether and to what extent the Bill will achieve them.
The Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to create strategic health authorities for the whole of England. Our understanding is that there will be 28 SHAs, whose function will be to guide and oversee the development of local health services and to performance manage PCTs and NHS trusts under individual performance agreements. At the same time, as we know, the creation of primary care trusts is to be accelerated, and it is PCTs, not strategic health authorities, which will be made responsible for the commissioning of healthcare services. Above the SHAs will remain the regional directors, whose remit will extend over a very much wider area than that of each SHA.
The obvious point to note about this structure is that, far from reducing the tiers of authority within the NHS, it is actually increasing them. Instead of two tiers, we shall have three. Furthermore, because there are going to be a great many more PCTs than there currently are health authorities, the actual number of health service bodies is going to increase as well. I am rather worried about the implications of that structure in terms both of the numbers of managers and administrators that it will require and the associated costs of that management. The costs, of course, are not simply financial; they can also be measured in terms of the time of trained doctors and clinicians that will be taken up in performing non-clinical duties. However, given that we accept that that is a price to be paid for the PCTs, which do have much to recommend them, where does it leave strategic health authorities? We are told that each SHA will be responsible for a population of roughly 1.5 million people, equivalent to perhaps three or four existing health authorities now. What is the rationale for that size of purview?
The BMA, among others, has expressed the worry that all this structural change—which we were promised by Frank Dobson would not happen when the Government first came to office—is going through too rapidly.
1022
There is a strong feeling that, if more time can be taken to agree the planned configuration of strategic health authorities and regions, the end result would be a good deal better. A meeting last October of senior representatives from health, local government, and business in the West Midlands concluded that the planned configuration will be too large and too diffuse to engage effectively with trusts, with PCTs and with local authorities. Why should there be 28 strategic health authorities and not 40 or 50? I suspect that there is no fully coherent answer to that. The answer depends on what SHAs are to do. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister a little more about the role that they will play and what the word "strategic" means?
One of the BMA's concerns, which I share, is that there does not appear to be anyone within the new structure tasked with safeguarding and fostering academic activity. A later amendment deals with this matter in more detail. A debate, last year, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, most recently brought home to us how vital it is for the good of the health service and for the good of the patients that recruitment and retention in academic medicine should be encouraged. No individual PCT will be capable of performing that function, nor can it be left to Richmond House. If anything is strategic in nature, clinical academic medicine certainly is. What role, if any, is envisaged for strategic health authorities in that regard?
Perhaps the Minister will tell the Committee what mechanisms are to be put in place to ensure that conflict or divergences of opinion between individual strategic health authorities can be resolved. Given that each SHA is to he tasked with brokering solutions across organisational boundaries of PCTs and must, by definition, do the best that it can for the local population that it serves, what degree of latitude can there be for a strategic health authority to compromise on what it sees as an optimum solution, merely because there are objections from the strategic health authority next door? The statutory duty for NHS bodies to cooperate does not appear to be enough in those circumstances because, under the situation that I have described, we would be dealing with two opposing and conflicting views of what is strategically best for an area.
The amendment makes a serious proposal, but it carries with it a great number of questions about the role that strategic health authorities will play in practice. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for introducing the debate on strategic health authorities and, more generally, on the new arrangements that we are putting in place. I need to refer back to the speech made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health, the shifting of the balance of power speech on 25th April 2001, as mentioned by the noble Earl. That set the broad intent of our direction. There is the reduction in the number of health authorities by about

1023
two-thirds by 2002. Some 28 new health authorities are to provide a strategic overview and to take forward some of the functions, including performance management, previously fulfilled by regional offices, with much of the planning and commissioning work previously carried out by health authorities passing to primary care trusts. As we have already commented, by 2004, the intention is that they will be controlling over 75 per cent of NHS funding.
There is also the disappearance of NHS regional offices, and the introduction of four directors of health and social care, who together with small groups of staff will work closely with the Government Offices for the Regions, focusing on managing health and social care through regulation, arbitration and resolution. I do not see the four directors of health and social care, alongside the small groups of staff who will work with them, as being an additional tier of management in the health service. Essentially they will be a part of headquarters, part of a central department of health, but, if you like, with a desk responsibility for one part of the country.
On that basis, I argue that we are not, as the noble Earl has suggested, continuing with three tiers. We are reducing to two tiers; the central tier being the strategic health authorities and beneath them the NHS trusts and the primary care trusts. Within that context I believe that strategic health authorities will have an important role to play. They will have responsibility for the strategic framework and the delivery of services across all NHS organisations. They are to ensure strong, coherent, professional leadership and the involvement of all professional groups. I believe that issues concerned with academic medicine in universities fit well within that remit in terms of the relationship between strategic health authorities, professional groups, universities and academic disciplines.
Importantly, strategic health authorities will be responsible for performance, managing NHS trusts and primary care trusts. They will account to the Secretary of State for performance of the NHS in their areas, so they will be the leaders of the NHS within the strategic health authority boundaries. They will deliver agreed progress on the NHS plan through performance agreements with individual trusts and primary care trusts. They will manage performance across organisational boundaries and networks to secure the best possible improvements for patients. They will intervene to broker solutions where problems arise between local NHS bodies.
I believe that that answers the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Clearly, in decentralising two primary care trusts, we expect them to take a major leadership role. In some cases they will work on behalf of other primary care trusts. Later we shall debate the commissioning of specialist services. It is likely that within one strategic health authority area, one primary care trust will take on the lead role of commissioning specialist services.
1024
It is possible to envisage that there may be an individual primary care trust that is not prepared to buy-in to the cost and the agreed programme for the commissioning of specialist services. In that case the strategic health authority would have a role to bang heads and ultimately to performance-manage primary care trusts to ensure that everything worked together. There may be many other examples where an individual primary care trust has taken a leadership role. The strategic health authority will be there as a backstop to intervene if matters do not go well or if there is a problem in agreeing an overall solution across the strategic health authority boundary.
There are two other important roles for strategic health authorities. First is the preparation and delivery of strategies for capital investment. The second is workforce development. It is important that the local health economy, covered by the strategic health authority, is exercised about its future workforce requirements and ensures that it plans the right numbers, commissioning the right number of training places. Information management is another area where we shall expect strategic health authorities to take a strong leadership role.
I believe that there is a clear differentiation between the kind of role envisaged for primary care trusts and NHS trusts and strategic health authorities. I have no doubt that the strategic health authority role will be invigorating. We know that we have attracted people of the highest calibre as chief executives designate to lead those strategic health authorities.
Having said that I fully accept that there are those in the service who worry about the pace of change and about the management load that will be placed on the new strategic health authorities and on primary care trusts.
We are setting a challenging programme and timetable. But if one looks at practice in the health service, one of the complaints often raised is that it takes a long time for structural change to take place; certainly much longer than in the private sector.
Once the Government have set out their strategic direction, the best possible course of action is to move as quickly as possible to the new arrangements. I am absolutely confident that the people we have appointed are ready to accept that challenge.
The noble Lord has not as yet raised the issue of primary care trust capacity. I suspect that we shall come on to that. But I repeat—although I know that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has some concerns about this—that all my experience suggests that the health service will rise to what I believe will be a very invigorating challenge.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The Minister has just said that it is possible that strategic health authorities will organise specialist services such as supra-regional services. The word "possible" is worrying because it

1025
means that it is not yet organised. Therefore, the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to delay the matter for a year may be a good idea.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I will need to read Hansard. But I think that I raised the possibility of a problem with a specialist commissioning of services. If one primary care trust in a health network is not prepared to play ball with the general thrust of the agreement within a locality, the strategic health authority would have the opportunity to intervene and bang heads together.
So far as concerns specialist commissioning, we intend to continue with national specialist commissioning arrangements. The regional commissioning arrangements would be undertaken at local level. It will be a primary care trust responsibility. We would expect them to work together. They would he performance managed by strategic health authorities. I know that we shall come to a later amendment on that issue.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. It has certainly considerably enlarged my understanding of the role of strategic health authorities.
It was good of the Minister to acknowledge that there is concern in some quarters of the health service about the speed of change. That applies in larger measure, perhaps, to the creation of primary care trusts than to strategic health authorities, although I think that it is true there also.
The Minister did not really address my point about the size of the remit that strategic health authorities will have in terms of population and why that particular size had been chosen.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I apologise to the noble Earl for not responding to that question. Clearly, a number of factors must be taken into account in relation to the size of a strategic health authority boundary—for example, geography and population. There is a variation in population size between the largest and the smallest strategic health authority. But one of the most important considerations has been to try to build them as much as possible around care networks.
We recognise that, for example with cancer, for a largish population there is a requirement for an integrated service where primary, secondary and tertiary care elements all have a role to play. It is appropriate that the strategic health authority boundary, by and large, covers the kind of area required for a fully-fledged care network. That means that for a strategic health authority working for a primary care trust one could plan an integrated approach for services. Of course other factors, such as geography, population and size, also come into play.
Earl Howe: Again that was very helpful. I am particularly glad to hear that a flexible approach is being adopted in the department. That is surely right.
1026
My noble friend Lady Noakes will have a number of other questions to ask on the subject of strategic health authorities later on. For now, I thank the Minister once again for what he has said I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 1, line 6, leave out "areas" and innert "regions'.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 15 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 to 28, 30, 32 and 33, 37 to 40, 44, 46 to 48 and 50.
I was interested to hear what the Minister had to say when speaking to the last amendment, but the key question with regard to Clause 1 still remains: why are strategic health authorities being set up that bear little or no relationship to local government boundaries or the government's own regions for other government departments?
His rather circular argument about care networks was also interesting: the strategic health authorities being set up in an area where it is possible to build a care network. I thought that that was almost a self-fulfilling prophesy: if one decides that that is an area where one can build a care network, one builds one. I do not think that I am being unduly sceptical about that particular choice of words by the Minister, but it would be helpful to have a little more rationale about precisely why 32 strategic health authorities are being chosen.
As we heard earlier in the debate, over the years there have been a massive number of changes to the structure of health services. I do not have the pedigree of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to go right back to the 1948 era. I start only at 1974. We started with area health authorities. Then there were district health authorities. Then in the early 1990s we moved back into area health authorities. Now, we are going to have strategic health authorities which will cure all known organisational ills. The one constant—that is why I go back to 1974 rather than to an earlier period—has been the NHS region. Although there have been some changing of boundaries and consolidation, there is no doubt—this is something which is very familiar to health professionals—that we need critical mass at regional level, and in particular there is the need for specialist commissioning at regional level.
Many professionals have concluded that the Government's current legislative proposals to devolve NHS commissioning responsibility to PCTs in particular could lead to a deterioration in the national provision of specialised services. Their proposals to create a series of PCT consortiums to commission these services is seriously flawed because of their failure to guarantee that these consortiums will have a sufficient number of local PCT members to provide for viable services. That is part of the reason for the proposals by my noble friends on these Benches for a regional, as opposed to a strategic health authority, basis for re-organisation.

1027
In January 2002, the Department of Health published its revised proposals on specialist commissioning in Shifting the Balance of Power: The Next Steps. The document sets out how PCTs are expected to commission local services, both primary and secondary. Despite being billed as the definitive expression of government policy, it does not contain any mechanism for guaranteeing that local commissioning consortiums will have a sufficiently large membership to be viable. That is another reason for regional commissioning.
The proposed system of PCT consortiums could lead to a substantial disruption in the provision of specialised services, as PCT boards decide that local relatively low cost, high volume services are a greater priority for investment than membership of consortiums with high cost, low volume treatments—precisely those specialised tertiary care areas of commissioning which are so important. That confused picture is of concern because the new system hinges on the good will of the new PCTs. The existing consortiums have had mixed success in attracting health authorities to their membership—even though LHAs have a tradition of strategic planning for specialised services. The problem is likely to be exacerbated by devolution to PCTs, which will undoubtedly have a steep learning curve.
That illustrates the problems of not having a clear regional basis for organisation. Another key benefit of regional organisation is that it would cover enough territory to take a strategic view of regional health services in general. Under the new strategic health authorities, there would be problems with coterminosity that would not exist regionally.
It is important also that public health strategy is dealt with at an appropriate level—such as regionally. In the Act that established the Greater London Authority, health promotion and public health-were specifically mentioned—showing that the region is considered an appropriate level.
There will be nine regional directors of public health but they will not be bolted on to any regional structure. They will be without regional health authorities to which they can relate—though they will be better placed in terms of having an individual economic region used by other government departments than the four regional directors of health and social care, who will not bear a relationship with any natural or local government boundary.
Somewhat perversely, the Government have chosen anything but a logical and sensible boundary for the reorganisation of health services. Despite the Minister's comments, if the four regional directors are not another layer of management—the noble Lord mentioned performance management—what are they? If they do not have a function, should they exist in the first place? Either they are a layer of management, have a purpose and a set of objectives or not—in which case, they should not be there. They will each be paid a salary for an inadequate job.
1028
Above all, it is vital to ensure proper accountability for a health strategy that ties in with a known and familiar structure. That could be secured through a regional organisation. In a strategic sense, that accountability is unlikely to be secured any other way. The current scheme of reorganisation, as with so much in the Bill, is half baked. I urge the Government to think again. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am unclear where current statutory functions, such as the inspection of nursing homes and duties in relation to the protection children, will lie if there is no coterminosity with local authority boundaries. Who will carry responsibility where the boundaries are blurred?
Lord Clement-Jones: There would be far greater coterminosity under the regional proposals than there could be with any strategic health authority boundaries. To that extent, I hope that the noble Baroness is entirely satisfied with the scheme from these Benches.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I am rather suspicious about the four care authorities. Does that arrangement mean that people might have to pay for their needs? At present, under the health authority, they do not have to pay. Under social care, there is a means test. Some individuals desperately need certain aids—particularly severely disabled and elderly people. Otherwise, they will get into real difficulties.
I asked "Why strategic?" on Second Reading. The word "strategic" may not be as well understood by the local population as the word "region".
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I did not think that I would ever hear a speech in which the idea of bringing regional health authorities back into existence would be met with such enthusiasm. I well remember a debate in another place in the late 1980s in which RHAs survived by two votes. It almost brings tears to my eyes to know of the enthusiasm with which some of your Lordships regard regional health authorities.
My experience is that RHAs were uncomfortably placed—too far from the coal face and too large, given the areas and populations that they covered, to be particularly effective. The great advantage of strategic authorities is that they are large enough to deal with some of the strategic issues that I mentioned in the previous debate but not so large as to be removed from the public that SHAs exist to serve.
Strategic health authorities do follow local government boundaries, and the consultation process supported that; and SHA boundaries are consistent with those of the government offices in the regions. Trying, as ever, to pull together the needs of the NHS with the requirement for consistency across governmental boundaries, we have got as close as we can to a sensible arrangement.
The noble Lord felt that the directors of health and social care would have little work to do. I fear that he has misunderstood my point. I was answering a point

1029
made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, when he suggested that with the new arrangements we would end up with three tiers of management. I said that the four directors of health and social care and the staff to work to them should not be seen as another tier—an intermediate tier, as it were—between the Department of Health and the strategic health authorities.
The directors of health and social care will be senior officials of the department and should be seen as occupying a headquarters function. They will be on the board of directors. It is simply that, as part of their major responsibility, they will have oversight or one part of the country's National Health Service. They will have a vital role to play. For example, as part of a national programme they will be managing the appointment, development and succession planning of all senior NHS management staff; they will support Ministers through case work visits and local intelligence; and they will be trouble-shooting. Importantly, they will bring the NHS and social care together. There is great advantage in bringing the two together under one person. To take an issue that we know well, the interrelationship between the NHS and local government, the new structure is likely to encourage a much more integrated approach to performance management.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that creating directors of health and social care will have no impact on the question of means-tested payments, or whatever, for personal social care. The NHS is free at the point of delivery. There will be no impact on those traditional arrangements.
The answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about regulation of the institution that she mentioned is that that will become the responsibility of the National Care Standards Commission. It will be the responsibility of that authority, which will take over the present responsibilities of health and local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned commissioning of specialist services as an example of the need for a region. We shall debate that later, but I assure him that national specialty commissioning will continue to be undertaken at national level. I am confident that the kind of specialty commissioning that needs to take place at more local level will be undertaken effectively by primary care trusts, with the back-stop that if there are problems the strategic health authority will have a role in intervening and performance managing those trusts.
We do not need regional authorities in the new structure. Strategic health authorities provide the right balance between strategy and closeness to the population and will serve us well in taking forward NHS reform.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am delighted to note his enormous confidence in the new structure, which, as will become increasingly apparent in our debates, is not shared by many others. The Minister's point was that regions are too large to be effective. It is somewhat perverse that,
1030
alone among government departments, the Department of Health has decided that the region is not an appropriate unit of management or strategy. Every other department has chosen the region as its unit; government offices are testimony to that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord has reminded me that I did not respond to his earlier point about public health. Clearly in public health it is important that there is a strong relationship between the NHS and the regional offices of government. That is why there will be a public health specialist who will work both to the directors of health and social care and to regional government offices. That is a good illustration of the flexibility of the arrangements which, while preserving the integrity of the NHS boundaries to serve NHS purposes, 'will none the less allow for integration and joint process with regional government offices.
Lord Clement-Jones: I am delighted that at least in one respect the Government accept that argument. I wish that they accepted it for the other 80 per cent of the health service. These public health directors will be rather lonely creatures. They will have no other health professionals to whom to talk. No doubt they will talk to their fellow officers in other disciplines in government offices, but it will be rather peculiar that there will be no other health professionals to advise them or to whom they can relate.
However, without elaborating too far, it seems somewhat strange that the Minister regards the suggestion for regions as being too "remote" to serve the public interest. In strategic terms, that is the word the Minister wishes to use. Technically, I am sure the noble Lord is right. It is possible to say that the strategic health authorities follow local government boundaries. If one draws a line around two counties, or four unitary authorities, it follows local boundaries. The regional understanding is not followed in the catchment areas. I am certain that after a period of years we shall find 32 moving to 15, 9, 10 or whatever; but they will be more regionally based than today.
I accept to a degree what the Minister says about the four directors of health and social care. Of course, we on these Benches welcome any gathering together of health and social care. Indeed, I recall putting forward amendments to numerous Bills introduced in this House providing precisely that, rather than the partnership arrangements first proposed by the Government in the Health Act 1999. We argued strongly for integration. It was delightful that two years later the Government put forward proposals for care trusts which we supported. It goes with the grain of our thinking.
However, the four directors of health and social care who fit into no known region are to take a strategic view without relating to any set of organisations. Yet within the structure of the NHS they are also accountable to the chief executive. That is another layer of management. No doubt the Minister sees it somewhat differently.

1031
I believe that the strategic health authorities will not be strong enough to withstand micromanagement from the centre. That is the key argument. If regional authorities are properly staffed, with properly specialised skills, one will have people of sufficient seniority and expertise to pursue robustly policy in health services in their areas and at the same time to resist micromanagement from the centre.
The government proposals are unsatisfactory. This debate has been an opportunity to hear the Minister's enormous confidence about the new structure. For that I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 28 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 2, line 21, leave out "are" and insert "is"
The noble Earl said: I can deal briefly with the amendment and speak to Amendment No. 34.
In two places, the clause has a plural verb with a single subject. My suggestion to the Committee is that we correct the syntax. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is an enormously important amendment. I am advised that there are different views as to whether a body which consists of a number of persons should be treated as singular or plural. For example, some people say "the Government is" and others "the Government are". Neither is wrong; it is a question of style. The important point here is that Clause 1 amends existing legislation: the National Health Service Act 1977. The 1977 Act refers throughout to a health authority as a plural body. For instance, Section 16C(1) states:
"Every health authority will make arrangements with a view to securing that they receive advice appropriate for enabling them effectively to exercise the functions exercisable by them".
Section 8(4)(d) states that the Secretary of State may by order change the name by which a health authority are known. The wording in the current Bill follows the same convention in the Act we are amending. I hope that the noble Earl feels that that is a satisfactory explanation.
Lord Turnberg: Before the Minister sits down, is it not the singular name which is at fault? The Bill states that the Secretary of State may by order,
"change the name by which a Strategic Health Authority or Health Authority are known".
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We are following the conventions set out in the 1977 Act in which the words "by which a health authority are known" are used.
Earl Howe: Is the Minister satisfied that this is a consistent feature throughout the Bill? It seems extraordinary to me. In ordinary language we simply do not say "a health authority are". We say, "a health authority is". I know that we speak of the Government
1032
in plural terms. That is perhaps a different case; it is a collective noun for a number of people. A health authority is a single body; it is a constituted legal body. As such, it is grammatically singular.
It seems extraordinary that this should occur. Is the Minister satisfied that it is not just a slip-up and that it is consistent throughout?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The point is that, if it is a slip-up, we are being consistent in slipping up. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has raised a vitally important point. My understanding is that we are being entirely consistent with the 1977 Act. Of course, I would be happy to examine the matter again. No doubt, we will welcome a return to it on Report.
Earl Howe: I shall not ask the Minister to spend a lot of his time considering it. However, it is interesting that a primary care trust should be treated as a singular noun in the Bill, whereas a health authority is not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations made under subsection (5) shall include the requirement for consultation with health professionals, local authorities, bodies representing patients and such other interested parties as the Secretary of State considers appropriate."
The noble Earl said: It is a commonplace in Committee for amendments to be tabled that propose a requirement for consultation and the substitution of the affirmative resolution procedure for the negative. Nevertheless, in moving Amendment No. 31 and speaking to Amendment No. 35, I make no apology for following that well worn path. I hope that the Minister may be persuaded to follow my lead and my argument.
In this part of the clause, we are dealing with a substantial power to be conferred on the Secretary of State. It is the power to establish a new strategic health authority, vary the area of a strategic health authority or abolish a strategic health authority. Any of those things would constitute a significant change in the structure of the health service. Despite the Minister's helpful explanations this evening, the clause is an empty box.
When the Bill was debated in another place, the Government helpfully conceded that there should be provision for consultation before a strategic health authority order could be made. When it arrived, the amendment looked rather odd. Subsection (5) of the new Section 8 gives the Secretary of State a power to make regulations about consultation. We are usually assured by Ministers that what may seem to be a permissive power is, in practice, a requirement. However, here we also have the uncommon addition of the words,
"and if he does make such regulations".

1033
The subsection has a more than usually permissive and discretionary ring to it. It also says nothing at all about who will be consulted. With any major change, such as the one we are discussing, there will be a wide range of interested parties, not only doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals but local authorities which may be directly affected, voluntary organisations and, of course, patients. The patients are, perhaps, especially important. We would do well to remind ourselves that decisions on who plans and directs services can have a major effect on what services are provided and where. Such questions are important to local communities. At present, CHCs have a right to be consulted by the Secretary of State on reorganisation in the health service. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to confirm today that regulations for consultation will be drawn up soon and that he will be able to flesh out the detail of those regulations.
I turn briefly to the question of parliamentary procedure. If we leave the procedure as it is, Ministers will be able to alter fundamentally the size, remit or even the existence of a strategic health authority, with only a small chance that another place will have an opportunity to debate and, therefore, contest what is proposed. There is less of a problem in this House with finding debating time for a prayer to annul. In another place, as we know, life is different, and only a fraction of the number of prayers to annul result in a parliamentary debate. It would be possible, therefore, with the barest minimum of parliamentary scrutiny, for a Secretary of State to amalgamate two or more strategic health authorities and in doing so radically alter the relationship between an SHA and the PCTs for which it had responsibility.
I am uncomfortable with that prospect. It may be that after consultation there is general agreement on the proposal, in which case an order would be likely to go through more or less on the nod. But it may equally be that the scheme contains controversial features on which a debate in Parliament should be guaranteed to the Opposition party. It is for that reason that I tabled Amendment No. 35.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendments and the reasons for them. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I support the noble Earl in these two amendments. As he said, the way subsection (5) is worded is extraordinary,
"and if he does make such regulations".
I read a letter from Hazel Blears to my honourable friend Dr Harris in the Commons which makes the consultation procedures generally no clearer. I have a letter which deals with the mechanism for consultations above strategic health authority level and with the arrangements for consulting on the decision of strategic health authorities to delegate functions to PCTs. All of that appears to be vague and discretionary. It is therefore an absolutely valid point to make that it should be written on the face of the Bill.
We have had discussions in the past, certainly when the Health Bill went through, on the nature of consultations. Of course the Minister does not like
1034
lists—none of us likes lists—but general duties on consultation should at least be clear. There should be some prescription as to how they are carried out. There is little in this Bill and that is one of its flaws.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: One thing the National Health Service could never be accused of is undertaking too little consultation. I hope that I can reassure the Committee that consultation w ill be effective in the matter of strategic health authorities in the future.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, this new section was inserted in another place. It effectively ensures that provision will be made for consultation in respect of the names, boundaries and mergers of strategic health authorities. I make it clear that the Minister, in moving that amendment, gave an undertaking that the Secretary of State would make regulations on the matter.
Given the level of detail required, it is appropriate to deal with this issue by means of regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. That will have the effect of ensuring that consultation on strategic health authorities is broadly in line with consultation requirements for other NHS bodies such as primary care trusts and NHS trusts, the detail of which is also set out in regulations.
Making provision for consultation requirements is in line with many of the other provisions in the Bill. If power and resources are to be devolved to front-line organisations, it is only right that those organisations, together with local partners, patients and the public, should be consulted on changes to the health service.
As I indicated, the exact scope of any consultation requirements will be a matter for regulations. What we currently have in mind is that consultees might include local NHS trusts, primary care trusts, neighbouring strategic health authorities, staff representatives, voluntary organisations, local authorities and patient forums. I hope that, having given the general intent of the Government, the Committee will agree that Amendment No. 31 is unnecessary and are reassured that the Government will ensure that the consultation is appropriate and as wide-ranging as I suggested.
As regards orders made under this subsection, they would contain a high level of detail concerning the proposed local arrangements. I do not believe that a case has been made that in the circumstances surrounding strategic health authorities there is a need for the affirmative resolution procedure for every order made under this particular subsection. It does not seem to me that that is proportionate. One has to remember that any orders made will already have been subject to local consultation. Obviously, that would have allowed for a great deal of discussion and input at local level. It seems to me that as regards parliamentary scrutiny we have the balance about right.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps I may probe a little further regarding particular mechanisms. I accept the generality of what the Minister says. For example, in the Minister's letter to my honourable friend she says,
"Mechanisms for consultation above strategic health authority level. This is an important issue and one that is provided for in existing legislation. The NHS Act 1977 provides for the Secretary of State to direct Strategic Health Authorities to work together to undertake their functions. It is intended that consultation on changes that span strategic health authority boundaries will be undertaken by Strategic Health Authorities working together, and this will be achieved through directions. How this will operate in practice is still to be decided".
Those are rather important issues. It is not even going to be in the regulations, but by way of direction, as far as I can see. The letter continues,
"We see benefits in Strategic Health Authorities working together in a federated way, and also a single Strategic Health Authority taking lead responsibility for the consultation exercise".
We are in very vague territory here.
I come to a second example, which is arrangements for consulting on the decisions of strategic health authorities to delegate functions to PCTs. Mrs Blears assures my honourable friend that it comes within Section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. The letter continues,
"If delegation would not have any impact on services this would make public consultation unnecessary and indeed irrelevant".
I do not quite understand that. If something is delegated to a PCT, ipso facto that requires a level of consultation. But she goes on to say,
"We intend to issue practice guidance to the NHS in relation to its duty to 'involve and consult', and it will be this vehicle that is used to make explicit that delegation of functions must be consulted upon where it will impact on the services that are used the public".
We are getting into very complicated areas here. It seems rather strange that we have these myriad ways of consultation whereas something in the Bill which is relatively straightforward and over-arching would be preferable.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord. One has to draw a distinction here. Clause 1(5), which is the subject of the noble Earl's amendment, refers to the consultation concerning strategic health authorities, their abolition—
Lord Clement-Jones: I recognise that that is very limited and a very narrow duty of consultation on those specific matters.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Indeed. But the point my honourable friend Mrs Blears was making was that there are other sections of legislation which cover the wider area of consultation over services. Her reference to Section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 is a very good example of that. It states,
"It is the duty of every body to which this section applies to make arrangements with a view to securing, as respects health services for which it is responsible, that persons to whom those services are being or may be provided are, directly or through representatives, involved in and consulted on".
1036
The section goes on to describe the area of services on which they should be consulted.
Surely, the important point is whether the NHS of the future will take a vigorous approach to consultation both over issues such as strategic health authority boundaries and, much more importantly, over the future provision of services. We shall have some enormously interesting debates later in Committee on patient and public involvement. It is fully our intent that the health service should continue to be more effective in consultation and public involvement in service provision. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that it is the Government's intention to issue regulations in relation to Clause 1(5) to ensure that when it comes to changes in strategic health authorities, there will be full consultation that will cover the sort of organisations and bodies to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am sorry to continue this discussion but may I bring it down to a mundane level? Subsection (5) is in two halves. If it were terminated after the words, "Strategic Health Authority", it would have exactly the same meaning as it does now. It would not have curious phrases such as,
"and if he does make such regulations",
and "requirements (if any)" as it does now. It would say the same as it does now at half the length and without those unusual and complicating phrases.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am always willing to look again at proposed legislation to see whether we can cut some words from it. The wording is clear. It starts by saying
"The Secretary of State may make regulations … and if he does make such regulations he shall not make such an order".
However, I am happy to look at the wording again.
Earl Howe: I am a little disappointed at the Minister's reply to my proposal for affirmative parliamentary procedure. I should not have thought that consultation, however wide, should itself preclude the affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament. Indeed, I have never heard of consultation being given as a reason for denying Parliament an automatic right to debate a question. Nevertheless, I note what the Minister said and I shall consider the matter further.
I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance about making regulations and for setting out the Government's intentions on the persons and bodies to be consulted. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that subsection (5) has the look of a discretionary power rather than a mandatory one. On the other hand, we have the Minister's assurance on the record, which is a comfort, but the wording does seem somewhat unnecessarily tentative. I am grateful to the Minister for throwing light on this part of the clause and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 35 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause I shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Noakes: I rise to oppose Clause 1 standing part of the Bill and, if I may, I shall oppose Clause 7 and Schedule 1 standing part of the Bill because it is convenient to take these together.
The Minister may have gathered by now that there are several noble Lords who are not enthusiastic about strategic health authorities. Indeed, in opposing Clause I standing part, I echo what my noble friend Lord Howe said in moving Amendment No. 14 and what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said in relation to Amendment No. 15 and the others in that group.
We should be under no illusion about the content of these parts of the Bill. With some minor exceptions, they are there to do one thing only, which is to change the name from health authorities to strategic health authorities. To do that the Bill takes the first 44 lines, several lines within Clause 2, 25 lines comprising Clause 6 and six-and-a-half pages of Schedule 1. I suggest that that has wasted the time of parliamentary draftsmen; it was a waste of time in another place when those parts of the Bill were considered; and it is now a waste of time in this Committee. Nothing of substance would be changed by this wasteful legislation. It would be simply changing name plates. With the NHS failing to deliver on all fronts, it is staggering that the Government have wasted so much time to achieve so little.
All this legislative effort is being undertaken in order that the organisations currently called "health authorities" can in future be called "strategic health authorities". That might be acceptable if they were indeed "strategic" bodies, but several Members of the Committee have already cast significant doubt on that.
Let us look at what these strategic bodies will do. The paper Shifting the Balance of Power states that the strategic health authorities will have three key functions The first key function will be to create a coherent strategic framework—but I could not find anywhere in the document what strategy they will be responsible for. As it is clearly the Government's intention that delivery will be in the hands of other bodies—in particular, PCTs and NHS trusts—it is difficult to understand what the creation of a strategic framework will mean in practice.
Can the Minister say what the creation of a strategic framework will mean in practice and explain how, if the requirement is to deliver these strategies somewhere else, such bodies can create strategies but not deliver them? The Minister referred earlier to strategic health authorities "banging heads together", but I am not quite sure how strategic that is.
We have already spoken about specialist services—an issue to which we will return later—where again responsibility filters down to the level of primary care trusts, with the rather vague involvement of strategic health authorities. We were told that it is important that care networks should be coterminous with strategic health authorities, but I am not clear what
1038
strategic—or, indeed, operational—involvement the strategic health authorities will have with the care network. That is the first key function.
The second key function is to agree annual performance targets and performance management. I have never seen performance management described as "strategic". It is quintessentially an operational matter and no amount of fancy words can turn it into a strategic activity.
The third key function is building capacity and supporting performance improvement. It would appear that this will involve matters such as supporting systems development across a number of PCTs, NHS trusts and networks. Is that strategic? I think not. It is simply an operational matter at a higher level. Can the Minister explain how supporting systems development and so on is strategic?
The question is whether all this amounts to the creation of strategic bodies? It certainly amounts to the creation of smaller bodies, as are the current health authorities, and while smallness might be associated with strategic bodies it is not a conclusive indicator of strategy.
The Minister referred to the new strategic health authorities being involved in leadership, but the leadership issues seem to concern operational matters. So again I have difficulty in understanding what these strategic health authorities are.
To call the bodies anything but what they are currently called—that is, "health authorities"—is vanity. There is no substance to the proposed title. I would not object to these bodies being a tier above the primary care trusts and the NHS trusts—that is sensible and would provide local focus—but they would not be strategic in intent or likely effect; they would be simply an intermediate tier.
By opposing Clauses 1 and 7 and Schedule I stand part, we would leave things exactly as they are—health authorities would remain health authorities and that would be an end to the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, proposed calling them "regional health authorities" rather than "strategic health authorities". I certainly prefer that as a more honest description—although 28 of them would be rather a lot—but that, too, would be a waste of the statute book. I commend my simple leave-things-as-they-are approach to the Committee.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I should like to add a brief word in support of what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said. She absolutely hit the nail on the head when she said that the status quo is preferable to anything to be found in this Bill in respect of the structure of this clause.
We know that in probably a minimum of nine months' time there will be another NHS Bill with further proposals for reorganisation. Whether as a result of the aftermath of Kennedy, the aftermath of Adair Turner, further consideration of the King's Fund report, further inspiration on the part of the Secretary of State for Health, there will be further

1039
proposals. These strategic health authorities—I think the noble Baroness has punched an enormous hole through the Minister's rationale for them—have no real substance. They come within the definition of "a rose by any other name". The Minister would do well to put Clause 1 into early retirement and reconsider its structure.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, obviously knows more than I do about next year's legislative programme. If we continue at the same rate of progress that we have made today, I suspect we shall still be debating this Bill next year.
I appreciate the noble Baroness' wide experience of management, particularly in the National Health Service. I did not know that she was another friend of the regional health authorities, but I am glad to welcome her to that rather exclusive club.
I should like to make two substantive points. First, I agree that one should not indulge in name changing for the sake of it. There has to be a substantive reason for calling strategic health authorities "strategic". I believe that there is. It is a visible sign of a real determination to decentralise the National Health Service. Strategic health authorities will have a much more strategic role than that currently performed by the existing health authorities. It will be a critical role in ensuring that the health service makes the progress that we all want it to make. The strategic health authorities will have a very exciting role. They will oversee the work of local NHS trusts and primary care trusts. They will become the headquarters of the NHS locally. Their chief executives will account both nationally and locally for the performance of local health services.
In addition to their local work, we greatly hope that the leaders of the strategic health authorities will also play a major role at national level in leading policy development. I believe that the Department of Health would be very well served by having strategic health authority people to lead national programmes of work, inform the department nationally of front-line issues and generally ensure that the closest possible network of communication and learning exists between the department and the NHS at local level.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested that some of the responsibilities of the strategic health authorities were less strategic and had more to do with operational management. There are two ways of looking at that. I have already listed some of the responsibilities of the strategic health authorities. They would be responsible for the strategic framework; the delivery of services across all organisations; ensuring strong, coherent and professional leadership; performance management; accounting to the Secretary of State for the performance of the NHS in their areas; managing the performance across organisational boundaries; intervening to broker solutions where problems arose, and so on.
1040
I sense that strategic health authorities are indeed being given strategic leadership of a very significant population, a very significant health community. In addition, they are being given levers in terms of performance management to make sure that the strategic leadership they display is effective throughout the health system within their boundaries. For example, if we had simply said that strategic health authorities were to develop a strategic plan/framework without giving them the levers to performance manage primary care and NHS trusts, we would have ended up with a rather powerless organisation. I believe that we have got the balance right: clearly strategic health authorities are strategic. They also have the ability to ensure that the whole health community is marching in the right direction, with a power of intervention to use when things go wrong.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the concerns that have been expressed by noble Lords. However, this is a significant change. It is about releasing power and resources to the front line; maintaining a strategic direction at the SHA level; and providing levers of performance management to ensure that the whole system is working effectively. In that sense, I believe that Clause 1 is an integral part of the Bill and that it should be supported.
Baroness Noakes: Can the Minister say how he reconciles the intention by the Secretary of State to devolve decision making as far as possible to the front line—that is, to primary care trusts—with what he has just described, which, I believe, is retaining as much power as possible at a level above that; for example, levers over performance management, powers to intervene, and so on? Is the noble Lord saying that what makes an organisation strategic here is the ability to interfere in the decisions of the tier to which the Secretary of State claims to be delegating?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, that is not how I read the situation. The clear intent is to devolve as much as possible to primary care trusts. But clearly there is a balance to be struck here. We are talking about a national service. Just as concerns were expressed earlier about specialty commissioning and how that will develop, we need a mechanism here to ensure that everyone is working together. As for the ability of a strategic health authority to intervene and to broker solutions where problems arise between local NHS bodies, I should expect that to arise very infrequently.
My experience, derived from my visits to some primary care trusts, is that people are working very well together. However, as part of the strategic leadership that the strategic health authority will carry out, I am suggesting that some levers of intervention may be required. I should expect those levers to be used on a very minimum basis.
Baroness Noakes: If the levers are minimum, can the Minister explain what is meant, in practice, by,
"creating a coherent strategic framework"?

1041
On the one hand, I cannot reconcile primary care trusts being given full freedom, while, on the other hand, the strategic health authorities are given responsibilities. It seems to me that there is a confusion between the two levels. I am not clear how a body can develop a "coherent strategic framework" if it does not have the operational responsibility to deliver. I believe I heard the Minister say that that would be achieved by having levers and powers to intervene. However, that means that we are rolling back on the stated intention of this provision as a decentralising measure. It seems to me that we have an illusion of decentralisation for primary care trusts: we have something that we call "strategic", but it is actually a matter of concentrating true decision-making at the level of the strategic health authority.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not believe that to be right. There is no point going down this route unless we empower primary care trusts. The purpose of shifting the balance is to get the key decisions about resources and service commissioning down to the primary care trust level where it lies parallel to primary care, which is responsible for making so many of the decisions that influence the whole of the National Health Service network. There is no question that this is a decentralisation measure. Equally, there are issues that go wider than the primary care trust boundaries. Inevitably, in the provision of national health services, when one looks, for instance at service networks and care networks, they often go wider than would be covered by an individual primary care trust.
The role of the strategic health authority is to ensure that in those circumstances there is an integrated approach, that people are working together and that, if there is a problem, there is an ability to do something about it. That is not a centralising charter. It is getting the balance right between the need to integrate services across care boundaries, but at the same time ensuring that the great bulk of decisions are taken at the primary care trust level.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that response. Perhaps I may return to the question that I asked earlier, but not digress into centralisation and decentralisation measures. What is a coherent strategic framework? How shall I know it when I see it in relation to a strategic health authority; and what does that mean for the freedom of action of a primary care trust?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: At the moment, strategic health authorities are developing. The designate chief
1042
executive will be working, together with the designate chairs of the 28 strategic health authorities, to produce franchise plans. Those plans will set out the key themes and aims of those authorities in their leadership role for the strategic health authority. We have received some outlines, but they are being worked upon. We shall see fuller documentation in the months to come.
From that, we shall have the overall intent and overall direction of the strategic health authority: the kind of care networks and services that are likely to be delivered, the capital programme, the development of information management and workforce development. That will set the strategic framework.
Within that, primary care trusts will have a huge role—an expanded role—in the commissioning of services and will take a leadership role in many of the issues that will have to be decided across the strategic health authority boundary. I believe that that approach gets the balance right between the need to pull some matters together within a care network and the need to decentralise as much as possible.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister. I do not think that he will expect the scepticism on these Benches to have evaporated after those words. I suspect that many of us will want to read his remarks carefully. We may well want to return to the matter another day.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Lord Filkin: I am aware that the House is sitting tomorrow, and that many of those present will be taking part in those debates. Therefore, there was an understanding that, when it got to 10 o'clock, that might be a good time to adjourn the House. We are about one minute off. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
House adjourned at one minute before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Employment Bill
Thursday, 14th March 2002.
The Committee met at four of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I would like to remind the Committee of the instructions that were read out yesterday; namely, that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee; Divisions will have to wait until Report stage. If there is a Division in the Chamber, I shall ask the noble Lord who is speaking to desist and carry on after we resume the Committee after a 10 minute break.
Clause 22 [Employment tribunals]:
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 32, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) The regulations as to cost and expenses made hereunder shall include provision so as to ensure that—

(a) at the conclusion of a case before an employment tribunal—

(i) an applicant (if the tribunal has granted no part of that person's application) shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the tribunal that he has received advice from a person whom the tribunal considers to be competent to give such advice to the effect that the applicant's case has a reasonable prospect of success; and

(ii) a respondent (if the tribunal has refused no part of the applicant's application) shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the tribunal that he has received advice from a person whom the tribunal considers to be competent to give such advice to the effect that no part of the application has any reasonable prospect of success;

(b) if a tribunal is not satisfied that the conditions set out in paragraph (a) (i) and (ii), as the case may be, have been complied with, it shall award costs against the applicant or respondent respectively."

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 62 has a simple purpose. It relates to an applicant who has had no part of his application granted by the tribunal, and to a respondent where the applicant has been wholly successful. In other words, it is even handed as between applicants and respondents. It applies when an applicant has wholly failed in his case and when a respondent has wholly failed in his defence. In either of those cases, the unsuccessful party is required to demonstrate that he acted on the basis of competent advice, had a case with a reasonable chance of success or a defence with a reasonable chance of success. If the wholly unsuccessful party cannot prove that he or she brought or defended the case in good faith, the tribunal must award costs against them.
CWH 70
This provision will deter applicants with hopeless cases from starting a claim in the expectation of getting something for its nuisance value or inconveniencing an employer. It will also deter the employer who defends a case out of vindictiveness when he has no real defence, or who tries to intimidate the claimant through the use of his greater resources. This provision is far milder in its effect than the situation in the civil court where, except in the most special cases, the costs always follow the event. In other words, in the civil court the loser pays the winner's costs. Under my provision the loser will not pay the winner's costs unless the tribunal is absolutely convinced that the case was not brought in good faith. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am very surprised that this amendment is before the Committee this afternoon. I have not had the privilege of serving on an ET myself but I had the experience, as a very young trade union official, of representing trade union members. How on earth the tribunal is expected to demonstrate competence, I have no idea. I used to be fairly successful but occasionally cases fall apart at the hearing, perhaps because one has not been properly informed before the case started. It is not an indication of competence or otherwise if you have had one or two cases that you have lost. Frankly, how on earth the tribunal is expected to come to a view about competence, I do not understand. Maybe it would he a good idea if the Government were to appoint my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton to set an examination in employment law. After all, he knows more about it than anyone else. One could have a pass or a fail for one's knowledge of employment tribunal procedures and law. Otherwise, I really have no idea how one assesses competence, and I do not believe this is a good idea at all.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I would not pass an exam. My noble friend must take this amendment more seriously. It was, after all, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, on behalf of a party that aims to be the government of this country. Presumably the amendment is the result of deep thought on the part of the noble Baroness and her advisers. I always take very seriously her proposals for a central policy on the question of costs.
I remind Members of the Committee of our debate yesterday. There is of course enormous pressure to increase costs, especially costs on applicants, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, made clear, is the primary reason for stopping applicants from bringing these terrible cases, however reasonable the case may be. Of course, the tribunal will award costs against them if the adviser is incompetent in the tribunal's view. Perhaps the noble Baroness would tell us whether that is not the case. The tribunal would have to keep a list of benchmarks of competence. No doubt it would not have to pass an examination on labour law at the London School of Economics, but one wonders whether a third class in a resit would do.
The noble Baroness must have some idea of the competence that she would demand. Would mere qualification as a legal representative or trade union

CWH 71
representative be enough? Of course, trade union representatives handle—often very competently handle—a vast number of such cases. They must be competent and the lay party who suffers the costs if it turns out that he has an adviser who is not competent; moreover, he must also have a reasonable prospect of success.
I flag up at this point the fact that a very important question is involved. How far will the future law of this country cause the tribunal to intervene with regard to arguable cases, which are not manifestly impossible and should not be struck out, and which should make the tribunal try the case in advance to decide whether it has a reasonable prospect of success?
I share my noble friend's astonishment that such an amendment to the Bill was tabled by the Official Opposition.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The first thing I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, is that he has not understood what I have said. He suggested that all this was to deal with the applicant to the tribunal and make him deal with costs. I stress again the relevant provision, which is that it relates to an applicant who had no part of his application granted by the tribunal and also to a respondent if the applicant had been wholly successful. In other words, the arrangement is absolutely even-handed between applicant and respondents.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, has a different point of view from my own. However, what he says he says in good faith, and so do I. When I say that the arrangement is even-handed on the two sides, I would like him—please—to accept that; he should not refer to half of what I have said, which I believe is very unfortunate.
Lord McCarthy: The point is that whoever the amendment leans on, who is going to feel responsibility and liability? What we are saying is that such an amendment is much more coercive and much more of a disincentive to a poor little applicant than it is to most respondents.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I do not accept that. Also, I have to say, and I will say again, that we are talking about a case in which the applicant has had no part of his application granted by the tribunal. The tribunal had already come to a conclusion and has not given way on any part. That means, of course, that in that case the respondent was successful. On the other hand, if the applicant is told that he is absolutely right, the respondent will have been absolutely unsuccessful; that was the point that I was making. I understand that noble Lords may want to interpret that in a different way. All I am saying is that I think that they should take into account what I say, and not what they think I might have said.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Before the noble Baroness sits down, the point that I was making was the difficulty of assessing competence. How on earth does one do that?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I understand the noble Baroness, which is why I did not include her in those two remarks. She made a completely different point. She was talking about the competence. However, if the tribunal has already made a decision, presumably it took that matter into account—the competence of the case and the advice—otherwise it would not have come to the conclusion that it did. I think that is a fair point for us to consider in deciding whether the wording is right or the wording is not right, but not on whether I was being even-handed, which indeed I was.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): I agree that in many cases it would indeed be sensible for either party to have sought advice before embarking on a course of litigation or defending a complaint. But I think it would be quite wrong to place a requirement on parties to seek advice in every case from a source identified as competent by the tribunal, as the noble Baroness's amendment proposes.
Parties to employment tribunals are free to choose their own representatives or to represent themselves and to conduct their own cases if they so wish. In fact, in a majority of cases parties do seek advice in some form or another at some stage of the case, but the freedom to conduct one's own case is an important principle in employment tribunals and one which I do not believe should be undermined in any way.
The tribunal rules are framed to deal with the specific nature of employment tribunals. They are aimed at maintaining a system which is accessible. As far as possible procedures are simple and steer clear of legalism. The rules recognise that in some cases it may not be necessary or possible to engage representation.
Requiring parties to seek advice in every case or face costs is over-prescriptive. Tribunals already have powers to ensure proper case management and to tackle abuses of the system. I am not minded to fetter their discretion as the noble Baroness proposes. On a technical note, I am concerned that this amendment would require parties to disclose their legal advice to the tribunal, which would go against the principles of professional privilege.
In many cases it will be desirable to take advice. Changes to employment legislation, together with case law and the impact of European-derived rights, has meant that tribunals have inevitably become more complex and legalistic, but this is not true of every case. In a straightforward non-payment of wages case, for example, it may be possible to establish from the available literature that there is a basis for taking a complaint to an employment tribunal.
And what would happen, for example, if the deadline for making a complaint was drawing near and an applicant was unable to arrange a consultation with his local advice centre? Should he be automatically penalised for lodging an application? We know that resources are stretched in free advice centres and it can be difficult to get an appointment.
Furthermore, there are already a range of provisions for tackling weak cases, which will be strengthened by the Bill. The tribunal may, at the request of either party

CWH 73
or of its own volition, call a pre-hearing review to consider whether an application or defence has no reasonable prospect of success. If it considers that the case is weak it may order the party to pay a deposit as a condition for continuing with the case, and it may issue a cost warning. We also intend to provide a power for tribunals to strike out an application or defence after a pre-hearing review if it considers that it has no reasonable prospect of success. We shall discuss that in more detail later when we come to Clause 28.
The tribunal also has a duty to consider an award of costs where it believes that the grounds for making a costs award are made out. In doing so the tribunal will consider all the circumstances of a case, and that might include whether a party has sought advice or ignored repeated advice to abandon a case.
In conclusion, I believe that taken together the provisions for tackling weak cases and defences under the present rules and in the Bill give tribunals a sufficient range of powers without being unduly prescriptive, and while maintaining the accessibility of employment tribunals. I therefore oppose this amendment, not least of all to avoid the possibility of exams being set by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, on employment law.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I want to take up what the Minister said about competence. In my experience and the experience of a number of others, people thought they were being represented by a competent person but that person was not competent. If they either represented themselves or they were represented by a friend the case often went perfectly well and the tribunal bent over backwards to help such people. If they were legally represented, the case also went quite well. However, from the moment one files one's case, it becomes public knowledge and there are firms who tout for business immediately. They produce unqualified people to help but very often the chairman will say, "This person is worse than no-one. He is absolutely destroying the applicant's case". Therefore, competence is important.
This does not concern my Opposition colleagues so much, because if one is a member of a trade union, one usually has good representation. However, if one is not and if, say, in my profession of dentistry one had to defend a case, one would presume that anyone making an approach was a reliable party and was somehow authorised, informed or well able to act. We saw so many cases ruined by people who were incompetent and those people were touting for business. I wonder what the Minister believes can or will be done about that in the Bill?
Lord Davies of Coity: Perhaps I may enter into the question of competence. My noble friend asked the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, representing the Opposition, how one measures competence. The noble Baroness made reference to trade union representation, legal representation and representation by a friend. However, there are other categories where competence seems not to be displayed. The question is: how does one possibly make a judgment on this?
CWH 74
I have sat for 11 years on the employment appeals tribunal and have seen all kinds of representation, whether by individuals, whether by legal representation, or representation by a friend or by somebody else. The fact is that it must be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether such people are competent or not. One yardstick would be: if you lose, you are considered incompetent; if you win, you are competent. So it strikes me as an extremely difficult concept with which to grapple particularly in an objective manner.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, raised a point, but it is not one that is totally relevant to the amendment. The amendment requires people to have advice from a competent person, which raises the question of what a competent person is, and that is one of the major reasons against it. The point she raises is one about deterring people who are not competent but who are trying to take this work. Employment consultants would be subject to wasted costs orders against them under the provisions of the Bill where they behave unreasonably in these circumstances. Therefore, to that extent it would be covered by the Bill, but it is a different point from the amendment which requires people to have competent advisers.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am grateful to the Minister for that comment and, of course, the courts would find against them. However, I am concerned about the poor applicant who believes himself to be in good, safe hands but who, instead, has fallen into a trap. I appreciate that it is not entirely relevant to the amendment but, nevertheless, I would be grateful if the Minister would take the point on board.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I listened carefully to what my noble friend said about the difficulty of assessing competence and what happens when one does not have competence. As the noble Baroness said, it was quite easy to see in certain cases where someone was totally incompetent, though perhaps it was not quite so easy to see when they were competent. I have listened carefully also to what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 63:
Page 32, line 14, at end insert ", in circumstances where the High Court would be entitled to make a 'wasted costs order' pursuant to Rule 48.7 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof, for the time being in force"
The noble Baroness said: I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 63, 65, 67, 69, 76, 77 and 78. First, I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 63 and 78, as they are identical amendments to Clauses 22 and 23. Clause 22 relates to employment tribunals and Clause 23 relates to employment appeals tribunals. Both clauses amend the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. In both of the new clauses it is sought to give the employment tribunal—or the employment appeals tribunal—the power to disallow all or part of the costs

CWH 75
of a representative of a party; to order that representative to meet all or part of the costs and expenses of any party; and to order a representative of a party to pay the Secretary of State any part of the allowances payable by her under Sections 5(2) and 5(3). In each case, the grounds for such an order are,
"by reason of the representative's conduct of the proceedings".
The Government have paid lip service to the concept of improving access to justice before tribunals. Yet this draconian power, as it is currently drafted, can have the effect only of intimidating representatives from appearing before or assisting parties to proceedings. I do not refer only to the representatives of employers because the provisions apply also to representatives of a claimant. I do not refer only to professional representatives, such as solicitors or barristers, because the provisions apply equally to trade union representatives and even to work colleagues who may be more articulate than the claimant and who may volunteer to assist.
Nowhere in the Bill does it lay down what criteria the tribunals will follow in imposing the penalties on the representatives of the parties. For example, the tribunal might rule that one's client had such an obviously hopeless case that one should not have allowed him to bring it. Or, having brought it, one should not have allowed him to continue with it after one had heard the evidence against one. Or the tribunal might rule that it was wrong for one to try to impugn the evidence of witness X, whom others found to be entirely credible. In other words, the Bill as drafted would give the tribunal the right to usurp the functions and discretion accorded to advocates in regular courts—the normal things that they would have. They might even make an order under the power because the representative had been less than deferential, or perhaps had even been rude to the tribunal.
It is paradoxical that, so long as a claimant acts in person without a representative, that claimant, who may bring an absolutely hopeless or even vindictive case in the hope that his employer will pay something—as I mentioned earlier, he may do so because of the nuisance value—will not suffer any financial penalty under this section. The same consideration applies to an employer who defends an equally hopeless case and rakes up unfounded allegations against the claimant. That is not acceptable, and it will not be acceptable for the Minister to tell us that the criteria will be laid down by the regulations.
As I said at Second Reading, it is unusual for the High Court and a district court to make what are called "wasted costs orders" against the lawyers acting for a party on account of some misconduct or breach of the rules, or inordinate delay in the conduct of the proceedings. However, the rules enabling the court to do so are clearly laid down in civil practice rules. There are cases on the record that show how and when that sort of penalty has been exacted.
CWH 76
I mean no disrespect to tribunals. I have listened to Members of the Committee today and know that many of them sit frequently or have sat on tribunals and have great expertise. It cannot be right, however, that they should operate differently from our judges. It cannot be right that they may apply different criteria or standards from those that are applicable in ordinary civil litigation. The effect of the amendment is to make the rules about penalising the representative identical to those rules that would be applicable to civil ligitants.
The Minister for Employment Relations and the Regions discussed a slightly different aspect of this issue in Committee in the other place. He said that he knew how the civil courts operate and that that is the proper benchmark for them to use. On the issue of charges, with which we shall deal later, he said that he wished to mirror the civil courts and that it would be strange to introduce a system for employment tribunals that was different from that in the civil courts.
I certainly agree with the Minister. There is no reason why different rules and standards should apply in different forums; that is between the tribunals and the civil courts. There is also no reason why there should be a risk of different tribunals sitting in different places and applying different rules and standards. There is thus no reason why the Minister, in setting the tribunal regulations, should draft anything different from the tried and tested Civil Procedure Rules. His own words that I have just quoted support that.
My amendment simply incorporates the Civil Procedure Rules, and, by implication, the cases decided in applying them, to the procedures of the tribunals. In my opinion the deterrent effect of the provision as it is at present is to diminish a party's right to a fair trial represented by independent counsel of his choice. As such, it could be illegal under the European Convention on Human Rights. My amendment will help the Government repair the defect.
I would now like to turn to the three identical Amendments Nos. 65, 67 and 69 in this group. These qualify the provisions whereby the tribunal can, in effect, penalise the party's representative in respect of some misconduct in the proceedings. It is not clear whether that right to inflict such a penalty applies to any representative or only to a paid representative. This ambiguity arises because paragraph (1A)(a) refers to the costs or expenses of a representative. Therefore, we clearly have a paid representative, and it is possible that due to the normal rules of legal construction that could—I do not know sufficient about that—spill over into the subsequent paragraphs. Whether it does or not, the addition of the nine words included in the amendments does no harm to the clause, but removes one possible area of doubt and argument.
Amendment No. 76 requires a tribunal, which refuses to allow a successful party its costs or expenses, to explain why. It seems to be the accepted norm that costs and expenses will be awarded, so any departure from that should be explained to the person involved.

CWH 77
In the district courts, the High Court, and the criminal courts, judges are expected to give reasons for their decisions, and there is absolutely no reason why the tribunal should not do the same. If that gives rise to more appeals, so be it. If they have to explain themselves, then tribunals will be less prone to make arbitrary decisions. Delivering reasoned judgment is part of the process of letting justice be seen to be done.
Lastly in this group, I would like to speak to Amendment No. 77. The amendment deals with the award of costs in the case of an appeal to the appeals tribunal. It is different in tenor to my Amendment No. 62 where I propose that a wholly unsuccessful party must pay the other party's costs if he or she cannot demonstrate that they have received competent advice. I would like to have taken that particular paragraph out of this speech so that we do not rediscuss the matter of what constitutes a viable case. In other words, as I said when I spoke to an earlier amendment, the loser has to convince the tribunal that the claim or defence was not just a time-waster.
When we come to an appeal, different considerations apply. One of the parties has already lost in the employment tribunal, and that should give them reason to pause just to consider whether in fact they were perhaps wrong. The other party, the respondent to the appeal, has already won once, and that should encourage him to think that perhaps he was in fact right. There can, therefore, be no grounds for ruling that the winner, who is dragged willy-nilly before the appeals tribunal, is simply acting contumaciously by losing the appeal. On the other hand, justice demands that both sides, including the former loser, should be treated equally as regards costs by the appeals tribunal.
The wording of the Bill is extremely weak. It simply provides that appeals tribunal rules may make provision for the payment of costs and expenses. On the other hand, they may not. The contents of the rules are extremely vague. They could provide an unequal liability for costs, as between an unsuccessful employer appellant and an unsuccessful employee appellant. What I propose in this amendment is that the loser of the appeal should automatically be liable for costs and expenses, except—and this is most important—where the tribunal considers it would be totally unjust for that to occur. That is a very wide exception and a wide discretion for the appeals tribunal. It could, for example, exercise that for a variety of reasons: after all, somebody has to lose. It could be exercised because the unsuccessful party had a very arguable case—and I stress the words "very arguable case"—because a novel point of law and procedure was involved. It may even be exercised because the winning party's case, although successful, had no moral merit whatever; or because the winning parties conducted the case in some unsatisfactory way, including adding to the costs or the time the case took.
Once again, I acknowledge that this amendment may act as a deterrent to one or other party to appeal or to oppose an appeal. Again, however, I remind the Committee that costs almost inevitably follow the event in civil litigation before the civil courts. Cases
CWH 78
brought to the employment tribunal or appeals tribunal are just that—civil litigation. There is no justification for different principles to apply merely because, to assist parties, the procedure is less formal and, hopefully, more speedy. In the United States of America, an unsuccessful party does not pay costs, which I believe is one reason there is so much purely speculative litigation. The number of cases before our tribunals is, as has often been said, increasing rapidly—a point that was mentioned in the consultation paper. It cannot be because there is more injustice to employees around, or one would hope that is not the case. It is because, with the vast amounts that tribunals are now able to award, and sometimes do, in what many consider to be over-the-top rulings, there is the temptation to launch entirely speculative proceedings in the hope of gaining the equivalent of a small lottery win.
I hope to comfort the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy. I certainly do not believe that we should deprive anybody of the right to their day in court, or publicly to air a grievance or even to expose an injustice. However, there is a maxim in bookmaking circles that should be followed: you should not make a bet that you cannot lose. Especially before an appellate court, both parties—not just the appellant—should consider the implications of pursuing or defending the appeal. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: I clearly understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is saying in respect of not making fish of one and fowl of another and making sure that litigants in person may be subjected to the same level of expenses as a representative would he in terms of costs. That is an extremely clinical approach, which on the face of it would seem correct. However, we need to recognise that when industrial tribunals were set up the intention was—as indeed the noble Baroness said—for them to be reasonably informal. As a result of, particularly employers, using legal expertise, authorities have been built up over the years. Following that, the procedures have certainly become more formal.
There would seem to be merit in imposing costs upon representatives who bring vexatious or unreasonable cases to a tribunal when perhaps they could have deterred or encouraged the litigant they represent, the applicant, from not taking a case because it was not sound. That is on the one hand. However, on the other, a litigant—an applicant who has been unfairly dismissed and who is unfamiliar with legal representation and with the legal requirements—might bring a case before a tribunal, perhaps mistakenly but certainly not vexatiously. It then seems somewhat harsh to treat that person in the same way as one would treat someone who is legally qualified, who recognises the law, is experienced in the field of industrial relations and brings the case in the knowledge that it is perhaps not a proper case to bring.
The legislation reflects a little of that—a little understanding and a little tolerance. To that extent, although it may require some adjustment, it should

CWH 79
still distinguish cases which are brought with legal support, if it is discovered that a case should not have been brought, and it should not compare a litigant in person—that is, an applicant who is quite ignorant of the circumstances and who might have been wrong but not necessarily vexatious.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend is surely right when he says that there is an enormous distinction between what the present rules deal with—namely, cases which are brought on a basis which is vexatious, misconceived or conducted wholly unreasonably—and cases referred to by the noble Baroness. I have some sympathy with her in relation to Rule 48.7 of the High Court's Civil Procedure Rules, which we shall deal with in a later amendment.
As to the vast number of cases where claims which are quite improper are pressed, to repeat what was said yesterday, last year out of 130,000 cases brought by applicants to tribunals, only 247 were found to be vexatious or misconceived to the extent that costs should have been awarded. Not all of those were applicants, but let us not worry about that, even if they all were.
Where is the research which shows this vast hinterland of cases to which the noble Baroness addresses herself? Where is the work that has been done since Professor Linda Dickens' book in the late 1980s on those who were dismissed and brought cases to the industrial tribunals? There is no mention in that work of all those cases. What is the justification in inquiries? I am sure that I must have missed some great work that has been carried out to back the Conservative Party's view that it is necessary to attack those in the tribunal. Where is the research to show that all the appeals that are taken to the employment appeals tribunal are perhaps wrongly misconceived in some way, beyond the couple of hundred cases of last year?
If we are to discuss propositions to increase costs, which is what this matter is all about, I should tell the Committee that there is enormous pressure from groups of employers—I stress, not all employers but groups of employers, especially the Federation of Small Businesses and, to some extent, wings of the CBI—to increase the incidence of costs.
The noble Baroness speaks of costs following the event in the ordinary court. It is true that that occurs—at least at the discretion of the court, which can intervene. However, costs do not follow the event in civilised labour tribunals. Does the noble Baroness know of any jurisdiction of labour tribunals where anything like the rule that costs follow the event is applied? If she does not, and if there is no research, then we can look forward to the noble Baroness withdrawing the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support my noble friend in seeking to obtain, through Amendment No. 65, compensation for preparation time. Yesterday I drew attention to the extensive amount of staff time and trouble which we expended in a case brought by an
CWH 80
employee of a charity. The case was eventually thrown out. The time spent was charitable time—we did not employ anyone to undertake the work. Therefore, I believe that Amendment No. 65, in the name of the noble Baroness, which states that if this amount is to be paid to someone for preparation time, is different from the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, which was a cost after the event. Considering time that it takes to prepare one's case, particularly if pressing for details from the other side which do not come and which hold one up again and again, it can be quite an expensive business, whether or not one is employed to deal with the case. That was not the case as regards the charity I mentioned, but often the person undertaking the case would have to give up perhaps remunerative time. Therefore, I think the noble Baroness is right in Amendment No. 65, which would include people whether they were remunerated or not.
It may be that the Minister says the amendment is not necessary because it might be that whether one is remunerated or not one could make a claim. However, as regards new Section 13A in the Bill, I am not clear whether if you were unremunerated you could claim for that preparation time. If the Minister can tell me that it would be included in any event, the amendment of the noble Baroness is unnecessary, but I would at least like that on record in Hansard. If he cannot tell me that, I think there is a case for including the provision. In cases in which costs are to be awarded, whether or not the person is charging for his services, he should be compensated either for the loss of time in his business or his own personal time, or whatever it is.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: If the noble Baroness will excuse me, may I ask which amendment she is discussing?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Amendment No. 65, which is about compensation for preparation time.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: It is not about preparation time.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Yes it is. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn is looking at, but Amendment No. 65 states:
"Page 32, line 17, at end insert 'whether or not the representative charges for his services"".
I think this is the only moment to speak to that point because it is grouped with Amendment No. 63.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: Yesterday I got into some difficulty and my noble friend said I was confused. On Amendment No. 61, I was told that we were not on (1A) but on (1)(a) and so I sank down giving way. I think now may be the opportunity, because we are on (1A), to ask the question I was seeking to ask yesterday. We were discussing an amendment which would put on the face of the Bill those criteria which are set out in regulations as to when costs are awarded, usually called vexatious and conceived.

CWH 81
This clause talks about the representative. What I am unclear about is what the representative does. The clause deals with the conduct. Do we assume that if his conduct is vexatious and so forth as listed in the regulations, costs can apply? Or are we going to have a separate set of regulations that do not apply to the party, as is the case at the moment, but apply to the representative of the party?
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, gave examples of cases which were fine and in which if the applicant had been left to his own devices he would probably have won. But his representative screwed it up—if I may use unparliamentary language—in the end the tribunal was faced with a difficulty. The applicant may win but the case may have been pursued vexatiously.
The question I am posing is: do we determine whether the representative is blameworthy by reference to the criteria that are set out for the party, or are we going to have another set of regulations which apply to representatives? I am not very clear at the moment.
Lord McCarthy: But it may not!
Lord Davies of Coity: It may not.
Lord McCarthy: This is critical. We have been remiss in failing to table an amendment which deals with the matter. All the Government say is "conduct". Is it vexatious conduct or some other kind of conduct? I would have thought that an incompetent brief—the kind of brief that appears in "Rumpole of the Bailey" but never faces Rumpole—is not incompetent because he is vexatious but incompetent because he does not know the law, because he is half drunk or something of that kind. Therefore, it is important that the Government tell us what the Dickens they mean.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the Minister replies, I want to thank my noble friend for her support. The point I wish to make is that this would intimidate people who might be there to help an applicant or a defendant, either the employee or the employer. The position is not quite so difficult when we talk about the paid representative, whether he be the barrister, solicitor or whoever. I do not know whether the measure applies to an unpaid representative, someone who is a friend, someone who is articulate, but I made the point about subsections (1A) and (1)(a). I do not know enough about the law to understand whether because the first part deals with payment the rest of the section does. It is ambiguous and dangerous, which is why I tabled these amendments. I notice that the Minister has been given a note, so perhaps we may find a definitive answer to this vexatious problem.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The grouping is unfortunate in that I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, did not know what I was talking about with Amendment No. 65. It is different from Amendment No. 63. This group is large and covers a number of entirely different matters, so it might have been better had it been grouped differently.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 63, 65, 67, 69, 76, 77 and 78. Amendment No. 63 seeks to limit the power to authorise employment tribunals to make wasted costs orders to the circumstances in which the civil courts may make such orders, as set out in the Civil Procedure Rule 48.7.
I appreciate the intentions to ensure that the principles which operate in the civil courts apply equally to the tribunals but I do not believe that this amendment is the best means of achieving a clear and sensible set of rules for the exercise of tribunals' powers in respect of wasted costs.
Employment tribunals are different from the civil courts and, while there are many similarities, I do not think it is wise to make employment tribunal procedures subject to the procedures of the civil courts. It is not a practical way of legislating on employment tribunals, because it ties the tribunals to the Civil Procedures Rules and thereby any future changes to those rules, without the consideration of whether they are suited to the specific nature of employment tribunals.
However, the Civil Procedure Rules set out important principles on how wasted costs orders operate in the civil courts and the tribunals will be subject to similar principles. It is our intention to set these out in the tribunal regulations on which there will be full public consultation. But, let me put on record how we envisage that the wasted costs provisions will apply.
Civil Procedure Rule 48.7 sets down two requirements on the court: when the court is considering making a wasted order, it requires that the court must give the representative a reasonable opportunity to attend the hearing to give reasons why no order should be made; and, secondly, that the court must specify the amount to be disallowed or paid.
It also has three powers: that the court may direct that notice of a wasted costs application or order be given to the representative's client; that the court may direct an inquiry into the matter by a costs judge or district judge; and that it may refer the whole question to a costs judge or district judge.
This rule is supported by a practice direction which sets out general procedure and guidance on such matters as when to make applications, when it will be appropriate for the court to make orders and how the court should approach the question. It specifies that a wasted costs order is appropriate only where a representative has acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently, and where his conduct has resulted in unnecessary costs to a party and compensation for those costs is just in all the circumstances.
Under current employment tribunal rules, costs may be awarded where a party, or a party's representative, has conducted the proceedings vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably. At present, where a representative has misconducted the proceedings, employment tribunals have the power to award costs only against the party

CWH 83
which he or she represents. It makes sense that where a representative has behaved badly, it is the representative who should shoulder the responsibility for any costs which his client or the other side incurs as a result. In line with provisions in the courts, the Bill will enable the rules to allow the tribunal to order that a representative meets any party's costs where he or she has misconducted the case.
Additionally, as in the civil courts, the Bill provides for the tribunal to disallow any of the representative's cost to his own client. Wasted costs orders, therefore, will be able to protect the client of unscrupulous or unprofessional practitioners as well as the other party to the action. However, we intend to limit wasted costs orders to representatives who act with a profit motive in order to ensure that those who provide advice and assistance on a not-for-profit basis are not deterred from doing so by the possibility of wasted costs orders.
We intend that the circumstances in which wasted costs may be made will be as described above; that is, where a case has been conducted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably. These circumstances are similar to those in which wasted costs orders may be made in the civil courts; that is, where there has been an improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission by a representative. However, we think it better to retain the language with which employment tribunals are familiar.
For the avoidance of doubt, we do not intend to allow tribunals to penalise representatives simply because they have taken on a case which has no reasonable prospect of success. For that reason, Clause 22 refers only to the representative's conduct of the proceedings. We recognise that parties may insist on cases being litigated, despite receiving advice that that is unwise, and that representatives may not be in a position to refuse to represent a client.
The Civil Procedure Rules provide that the court must give the representative the opportunity to attend the hearing about the proposed order and to put his or her case. Tribunal rules will do the same. We have given a commitment to include a provision in the tribunal regulations that a wasted costs order may not be made by the tribunal unless the representative has been afforded an opportunity to put his or her case to the tribunal on any such award.
Finally, the tribunal already has a power to refer costs awards to the county courts for a detailed assessment. The power to refer wasted costs awards to the courts for a detailed assessment is expressly provided for in Clause 22.
As I said, the key principles which apply in the civil courts will also apply to employment tribunals. These points, and any others which we consider necessary, will be covered in the supporting regulations. Our differences lie not with the principles which the amendment seeks to establish but rather with the means by which it seeks to establish them.
Lord McCarthy: Before the Minister continues, perhaps I may try to clarify the matter. He
CWH 84
refers to "negligently", "abusively", "vexatiously", "unscrupulously" and "unreasonably". Each of those equals misconduct. Further, he states that the representative will be allowed to make the case that he was not negligent or abusive, and so on, to the tribunal. Why cannot that be placed on the face of the Bill?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: These cases require the flexibility of the regulations. They do not concern essential issues of principle which should be in primary legislation. That is the argument.
I turn now to Amendment No. 65. We do not intend the provisions on wasted costs to apply to representatives who are not acting in pursuit of profit, such as trade union representatives, or those working for voluntary or not-for-profit organisations. This is the basis on which we consulted, and on which we have committed to implementing the provisions on wasted costs.
The amendment seeks to prevent the provisions on wasted costs distinguishing between a large multinational legal firm and a small voluntary advice centre or a local trade union official. I cannot agree that we should adopt such a blanket approach to all representatives.
I acknowledge that poor conduct may come from all types of representative, but I believe we must look to the nature of employment tribunals, their users and their representatives and adopt an approach which reflects this.
People who come to tribunals are those who have lost their jobs, who are seeking to recover unpaid wages, or redundancy pay. Around 25 per cent of applicants are out of work. Only 19 per cent of applicants come from management, and only 13 per cent are professionals. It follows, therefore, that many applicants are likely to be of limited means. The employment tribunal rules recognise this by providing that parties may be represented by anyone they choose. Legal representation is not a requirement in tribunals and neither is it the norm. As I have said, nearly 70 per cent of applicants rely on voluntary or not-for-profit advice bodies or trade unions for assistance. Membership organisations may also be a valuable source of advice for small firms.
The resources of organisations which gain financially from the provision of their services and those which do not are simply not comparable. Applying wasted costs to the not-for-profit sector could discourage voluntary advisers from offering their services, or mean that an order against an individual impacts on an organisation's ability to provide its services.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Could the Minister give way? I understood that Amendment No. 67 applied to new Section 13A on the face of the Bill. Surely this compensation will be paid only if the person is found to be in the wrong. If that is the case, I do not understand why this difference should be made. From the way the Minister talks, it seems as though everyone will be awarded costs against them all the

CWH 85
time, but this is not the normal procedure in tribunals; it is only when there is some exceptional reason for thinking that costs should be awarded.
In that case, I still do not understand why either a trade union or a voluntary organisation or friend should not be compensated for time for preparation. Either the case should have been thrown out at a pre-hearing stage, and not commenced, or, if was decided that the case was worthy of hearing, compensation or payment should not have been made to anyone.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am not certain that we are talking about the same part of the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It is the part the Minister is talking about now.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: This is about wasted costs orders.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: But the Minister then said he would speak to Amendment No. 65.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: That is what I am speaking to. It is about wasted costs orders, and the question here, which I was trying to address, was whether it was fair to treat people from non-profit organisations in the same way as one treats legal professionals. I am absolutely clear.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I apologise, I have misread the amendment. I thought it related to line 32.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am grateful for that clarification; I thought we were talking about something different.
Accessibility is an essential feature of the employment tribunal system and one which we are committed to preserving. On the one hand, we must have in place provisions for dealing with unreasonable behaviour, but at the same time, we must take great care not to damage the support systems for those of limited means or in financial hardship.
The definition of who is, or who is not, covered by the provisions on wasted costs will need to be worked out very carefully in the regulations. We will also consult carefully with legal organisations and those who work closely with tribunal users to ensure that we get the definition right. There will, of course, be full public consultation on the regulations.
As the point has been made a number of times, costs awards are rare, and we would expect costs awards against representatives to be few and far between. However, I believe that while we must have provisions in place to enable tribunals to deal with the occasional cases, we must take great care not to take away the safety net for those who rely on the voluntary and nonprofit sectors for assistance in preparation for, and representation at, employment tribunals. That is why I oppose the amendment.
Turning to Amendment No. 67, this amendment is very similar to the one which we have discussed, and it follows that I would also oppose that. The same applies to Amendment No.69.
CWH 86
As regards Amendment No. 76, the employment tribunal procedure regulations provide broadly that costs orders can be requested by either party, or made by the tribunal of its own volition, where in the opinion of the tribunal a party, or a representative, has behaved unreasonably in some way, or the case was misconceived. The amendment proposes a specific requirement on tribunals to give reasons why an award for costs has not been made. The regulations set out the circumstances in which a costs order can he made, and where a party has requested such an order the tribunal is necessarily required to examine the case, or the behaviour of the party in question, and consider whether or not an award is justified.
In practice, this generally takes place at the hearing, or at a separate costs hearing, where both parties and their representatives would be present. The outcome of tribunal decisions are recorded and sent to the parties, so in general tribunals give their reasons for awarding, or not awarding, costs. One of the changes made to the tribunal rules last year was to impose a duty on tribunals to consider making an award of costs where they consider that any of the grounds for making a costs award are made out. This means that even in the absence of a request from one of the parties, tribunals will generally give reasons for not making an award where they find there are circumstances which might justify such an order.
Turning now to Amendment No. 77, costs awards may be made in the employment appeals tribunal where proceedings are unnecessary, improper, vexatious, or where there has been unreasonable delay, or unreasonable conduct, in bringing or conducting the proceedings. These circumstances are very similar in the employment tribunals.
This amendment proposes a general costs recovery regime in the employment appeals tribunal, whereby the loser pays the winner's costs, except in cases where this would be unjust.
However, the message from tribunal users is that they do not want general costs recovery. It would act as a barrier to justice to applicants in particular, and would undermine the principles on which tribunals are founded. Applying a general costs regime to the employment appeals tribunal would have the same effect.
Let us consider the nature of employment tribunals and their users. They are people who have lost their jobs, who have been denied wages, or whose employment is threatened because of discrimination in the workplace. We also know that small firms make up a disproportionate share of cases. Consequently, in many cases they are people of limited means.
Employment appeals tribunal users are, of course, the same as those for employment tribunals, and I cannot see that it would be fairer to impose costs recovery in respect of appeals than it would be for bringing or defending tribunal cases. These are people for whom the prospect of costs recovery would be a serious deterrent, both to bringing a case, and to appealing a case.

CWH 87
Turning finally to Amendment No. 78, we have already examined the question of how wasted costs orders should operate in relation to Clause 22. I have set out the principles which will apply to the exercise of those powers in employment tribunals, and I have explained why I believe that it is not appropriate for employment tribunals to be bound by the rules and procedures of the civil courts.
The same arguments apply to the employment appeals tribunal. The employment appeals tribunal is, of course, a superior court of record and there are necessarily some differences between it and the employment tribunals. However, it is important that the employment appeals tribunal and employment tribunals work closely together and where practicable the principles and procedures should be closely aligned.
We envisage that the wasted costs provisions in the employment appeals tribunal will operate in a very similar way to those of employment tribunals. Likewise, there will be full consultation on the employment appeals tribunal rules, which will be drawn up the Lord Chancellor alongside the employment tribunal regulations. For the same reasons I have set out in respect of Clause 22, and with the same assurances as to the content of the regulations, I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, to withdraw the amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps I may say to my noble friend the Minister before he sits down that while he has given a detailed explanation of the Government's position, I am sure he will understand the importance of the extension of the costs regime. It is extremely important that representatives—that includes legal representatives and others—and their clients maintain confidence in the way in which this is done.
As I understood him, and he will correct me if I am wrong, his general case was that, whilst he could not accept this particular amendment, the regulations would adopt the general approach of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules and, in particular, Rule 48.7, which deals with that. The noble Lord then proceeded to elaborate to the extent of saying that, amongst the headings, was to be found "unreasonable conduct" or "negligent conduct".
In the Civil Procedure Rules, one finds that there are perhaps greater limitations in the many cases that have applied these notions than my noble friend suggested. I hesitate to cite all the cases but I will cite the summary of them in the current edition of Civil Procedure Rules itself. It states:
"'Unreasonable' aptly describes conduct which is vexatious, or designed to harass the other side, rather than advance the resolution of the case."
It made no difference if the conduct was the product of excessive zeal and a not-improper motive. It continues:
"Negligence should be understood in an untechnical way to denote failure to act with competence reasonably expected of ordinary members of the legal profession."
CWH 88
We can suppose that that related to a legal representative.
In adopting that approach, the court firmly "discountenanced" any suggestion that an application for a wasted costs order needed to prove under the negligence head anything less than would have to be proved in an action of negligence.
Finally, the rules state:
"A personal representative",
that is, an executor or trustee of an estate, for example,
"was not to be held to have acted improperly and unreasonably or negligently simply because he acted for a party who pursued a claim or defence that was plainly doomed to fail."
The legal representative would advise the client of the perceived weakness of the case and of the risk of failure, but the clients were free to reject advice and insist that cases be litigated. It was rarely, if ever, safe for a court to assume that a hopeless case was being litigated on the advice of the lawyers involved. Their role was to present the case and it was for the judge and not the lawyers to judge it.
I hesitate to quote further from the rules but there is much more. Can we have an assurance that the regulations will be drafted with an eye not merely on the general headings to which my noble friend the Minister referred, but also on the interpretation that the courts have put on them—I refer to the summaries? Can we also have the assurance that they will not be interpreted more narrowly than the High Court rules in the Civil Procedure Rules?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. We will certainly bear that point in mind when drafting the regulations.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for his long and detailed answer, which I will read very carefully. It seemed to cover most of my concerns.
I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for his intervention because there was a lack of clarity on that point. I am not sure that the Minister's response has got us much further; he said, "We will bear that in mind". I am not sure what it means to say, "We will bear that in mind when we come to draft the regulations". It does not mean, "Yes, that will be in the regulations". However, I do not think that one would stand up at this stage and say, "No, it will not be in the regulations". The Minister put the matter in a new way. We will look with some interest to see what happens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 64:
Page 32, line 16, after "it" insert "who usually makes or who may make, or whose firm or organisation may make, a charge for his services,"
The noble Baroness said: The Minister has said on a number of occasions that the Bill is not intended to prevent people from going to tribunals; the intention is to ensure that there are internal procedures in place so that more issues can be settled within the workplace.

CWH 89
Of course, we all agree with that. However, there are passages in the Bill that could give the contrary impression—it contains measures that could act as a deterrent—and the prospect of incurring costs is one such item. Powers are given to ETs to make awards. We shall come to that later, but the proposal is unprecedented.
We have been assured by the Minister this afternoon that the intention is not that costs should be levelled against non-profit-making organisations—trade unions, citizens advice bureaux and similar organisations. I welcome that but I cannot actually see the relevant provision in the Bill. Instead, we have the provisions allowing the ET to award costs. The amendment that we are proposing to Clause 22 would give the ET the power to introduce regulations,
"to disallow all or part of the costs or expenses of a representative of a party to proceedings before it by reason of that representative's conduct of the proceedings".
Our proposal is to insert, after the word "it",
"who usually makes or who may make or whose firm or organisation may make a charge for services".
In other words, we want written into the Bill the provision that the requirement will apply in the case of an organisation that charges for services—in other words, paid representatives—but that automatically would obviously not include non-profit-making organisations such as trade unions, citizens advice bureaux and so on. We think that this should somehow or other be written into the Bill. Why do we say that? For the simple reason that if it gets around that costs can be incurred one way or another, that would act as a deterrent to applicants. I and, I am sure, my noble friends have received a briefing from NACAB, which suggested that already its clients are often put off because they believe that costs could be incurred if it pursued the case. Therefore, if they do not have advice, quite often a good case is not pursued. We think that that would not be a very good idea—indeed, it is contrary to what we believe is the Government's intention.
I was very pleased to hear what the Minister said, in relation to the preceding amendment, on the issue of non-profit-making organisations not being charged. He also reasserted that ETs are intended to be accessible, and they might not be quite so accessible if costs were likely to be incurred by non-profit-making organisations. That is very true but we think that that should be spelt out somewhere or other in the Bill. We believe that the amendment would assist with that because it states that costs can be charged to paid representatives, but it uses a definition that means that other organisations would not be included. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Coity: I rise to give a measure of support to the amendment of my noble friend, Lady Turner. In fact, I do not think I could do better than the Minister's reasonable and sensible attack on Amendment No. 65, presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, concerning whether or not a representative may charge for his services. As my noble friend Lady Turner has already said, the
CWH 90
Minister clearly stated that we do not want to deter or penalise the activities of trades unions or charitable organisations in making representations. We thoroughly and completely agree with that. That is why the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, should be given serious consideration.
I want to go a little further. Not only is this a question of protecting trades unions and charitable organisations—organisations which do not charge for their services—it may also be a deterrent for organisations which simply take up cases on the basis that they will be paid for doing so. That is not a criticism of solicitors, counsel or barristers, but over the years I have seen a growth of what are sometimes called "industrial relations consultants", or "industrial relations services", which are more than prepared to take cases—sometimes on behalf of an applicant and sometimes on behalf of an employer. Their sole interest is that they will be paid for it. Whether it is a worthy or legitimate case does not much matter; nor does it matter whether they win or lose. They get paid for it.
If the amendment is agreed, it not only protects the litigant in person and those represented by people who do not charge for services; on many occasions it may well cause the organisations which represent both applicants and employers, simply because they will be paid, to think twice. If they lose on a bad case, they may well have to pay the costs that are incurred.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment seeks to set out on the face of the Bill which types of representatives will be covered by the provisions on wasted costs orders. All the speakers who have contributed to debate on the amendment have raised valuable points and, in real terms, there is not much between us. Our case is that these matters are better dealt with in regulations, and we debated that point earlier this afternoon.
The regulations will provide that wasted costs orders will apply to representatives who are acting for profit, including solicitors, barristers and employment advisers. Wasted costs will not apply to organisations which act on a voluntary or not-for-profit basis, such as trades unions, law centres and citizens advice bureaux. We all agree that those services provide valuable support for applicants and that they should not in any way be discouraged from doing what is an important job.
The other important point here is that there is greater flexibility in the regulations. Our regulations will be able to go further than the amendment because the amendment seeks to limit the power to make rules on wasted costs to representatives who make a charge for their services. That could capture trades unions or other organisations which charge indirectly for their services through membership fees.
The regulations will make a distinction between representatives on the basis of whether they are acting for profit or whether they are paid. As Members of the

CWH 91
Committee will remember, this was the basis of the consultation in Routes to Resolution and the basis on which we gave a commitment to take forward this provision in the Government's response.
The proper place for the definition of who is covered by wasted costs orders is not on the face of the Bill. Detailed consultation will be the key to getting this matter right. We also need to bear in mind that funding arrangements change and develop over time. Therefore, some flexibility will be required to keep pace with the changes in order to ensure that the wasted costs rules remain true to our intentions. We must also ensure that we do not need to return for additional legislation but instead can deal with the matter by way of regulation.
Amendment No. 66 relates to another amendment which seeks to define in the Bill the types of representative who will be subject to wasted costs orders. Amendment No. 68 similarly arises from the two amendments which precede it.
Amendment No. 79, which relates to Clause 23, makes the same provisions for wasted costs in the employment appeal tribunals. It is our intention that, where possible, the EAT regulations will reflect those in the employment tribunals.
We are not aware of any reasons why the wasted costs provisions in the EAT should be any different from those in the employment tribunals, including in respect of the types of representative who may attract a wasted costs order. Our intention is that they will operate in the same way. There will be a full opportunity to examine this issue further in the consultation on the regulations which, as I am sure the Committee would expect, will be extensive. All I can say about Amendment No. 80 is that it seems to us to be consequential on Amendment No. 79. I hope that explanation, and those which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, gave on earlier amendments, reassure Members of the Committee who are concerned about this issue. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend departs from the matter, I am sure he will understand that what is being done here, as in so many places, is that we are being asked to pass a pig in a poke. We are asked to pass the Bill on the basis that we do not quite know what it means but we are told it will mean something different from how it reads because there are going to be regulations. The Government cannot accept the amendment because, as I understand it, that might mean that a trade union would be included in the measure if it made a profit. The services for which members pay, it is said, amount to payment for representation in the tribunal. Members' subscriptions pay for a vast number of services from the union; they are not specifically for representation. One would have thought that the union was not to be included in the words moved by my noble friend, of a body which,
"usually makes or who may make, or whose firm or organisation may make, a charge for his services."
CWH 92
If the test is going to be profit, the Government know what they are going to put in these regulations because my noble friend the Minister said so.
Could we then have a formulation now so that we can understand what we are going to debate on Report? I refer to the matter of wasted costs and the extension of wasted costs, not just to the tribunal but also to the appeal tribunal, where I venture to suggest it might cause a certain amount of alarm amongst some members. This matter will not go away and the Law Society has raised other points, to which the Government must know the answer. They will not put it in the Bill because, as we are now quite clear, this Bill is couched in stone. There is not much point in these Committee proceedings, though we will continue with them. Nobody is going to consider an amendment because nothing in the Bill can be changed.
The Law Society has raised another matter, to which my noble friend must have the answer. To summarise what the Law Society has said in its brief: there is a problem with contingency fees. If the case is lost, the Law Society's view is the representative has not charged for his or her services and therefore has not made a profit. The Law Society suggests that instead of prescriptive regulations that could be circumvented, tribunals should have a broad discretion in this matter. From what my noble friend said, the Government have presumably rejected that view. If the tribunal is not to have a discretion they must know what they are going to do about contingency fees, so could he tell us?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand on that last point that the contingency fees are included in the wasted costs order.
I want to deal with one or two other points made by the noble Lord. We are in some danger here of trying to be over prescriptive in the legislation. These are matters which have quite properly been dealt with in secondary legislation for many years. Noble Lords who are arguing the point probably know that better than I, because they have been advising on that legislation for many years. The other important thing is that we need to ensure that we get the detail of this right, which is why we want to consult further, particularly with the judiciary as well as with the Law Society and other organisations which work closely with tribunal users. We want that full public consultation.
Perhaps I may make a further point. The amendment as it currently stands covers organisations which charge for their services. This could include trades unions which charge membership fees. That is not our intention and it is not what we seek to do. We want to exclude trades unions from wasted costs orders. We argue that setting out the detail in the regulations would be a better way of dealing with this matter, rather than on the face of the Bill in primary legislation, where matters tend to be fixed in stone.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: So that there should be no misunderstanding about this, my noble friend is saying that he will not take away the amendment and

CWH 93
find better wording—he objects to the wording—and consider an amendment of the Bill. Is he resolutely and absolutely saying that the Bill cannot be amended?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall not do that. I have made clear, as my noble friend Lord Sainsbury made clear earlier, that we want to have very detailed consultation on this issue so that we get the detail right. We do not want to make the kind of mistakes that can often take lime to unravel when you have to put them back into primary legislation.
Lord Davies of Coity: I want to clear up a little confusion regarding a comment made by the Minister. On this question of charges, it is generally understood that legal representation, or industrial relations representation by consultants, incurs a charge. Whether it is an hourly charge, a daily charge, or a charge for taking the case, it is a charge. I am not quite sure how it will be possible, if this amendment is accepted, to embrace trades union representation within it, because no charge is made. It is true that trades unions have money and that they may engage barristers but the fact is that trades union contributions are a collective exercise. The actual litigant, the applicant, the trades union member who receives the representation, is not charged for anything. I am therefore not quite sure how, if this amendment is accepted, it could possibly embrace a trades union.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That may well be the case, but the noble Lord makes the point for us. If we try to set this out on the face of the Bill, the danger is that we will not get it as we should. That is why we require the opportunity to have the detail set out in regulations, so that in the circumstances that the noble Lord describes, trades unions are not inveigled into this on the question of fees and charges.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: I have a feeling that, as happens down the other end of the corridor on a number of occasions, and quite understandably, we will he told that the amendments that we are pursuing, and the spirit behind them, would be better covered in regulations. I am reminded by my noble friend beside me that that is not a new phenomenon. What concerns me is that I am not quite sure what the process will be. Are we being told that with this amendment, for example, and some of the others that have my name attached to them, there will be consultation between the Government and the parties? Or will there be consultation between the Government and the parties and public disclosure? I am not quite sure how humble Peers who are interested in this Bill will see the proposals of the Government on these issues. I am quite happy for the parties to be consulted, but I want to be consulted too. I want to know what is happening. Could my noble friend give some clarification on this?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My understanding is that when Routes to Resolution was circulated, that constituted full public consultation. It is envisaged that a similar exercise will no doubt be undertaken when the draft details of the regulations are put
CWH 94
forward. There is absolutely no problem with the noble Lord being consulted as well. In a sense, these amendments will inform some of the thinking behind the draft regulations. I am sure that the points that have valuably been raised in this debate will be taken on board by those who are responsible for drafting.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: It may be called "Routes to Resolution: Part 2" or "Son of Routes to Resolution".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: There will be full public consultation. I cannot be clearer than that.
Lord McCarthy: One cannot say, "Full public consultation" because the demon takes so many forms. Routes to Resolution was not published in the normal way for a White Paper. I would not say it was hugger-mugger but it was semi-hugger-mugger. The response to Routes to Resolution leaked out round the corner. One does not publish regulations in the Printed Paper Office so that we can go and get them. That is not the way that things happen. Every time that this is done, it is done in a slightly different and slightly more restricted way. Unless there is a list of people who are going to get the paper, one will simply be told, "You might find it if you hunt about on the Internet".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure that this argument can be won. I suspect that we are getting at the root of the noble Lord's suspicions about the process. I can only put on the record our continued commitment to full public consultation, and I am sure that all those organisations that were part of the consultation process for Routes to Resolution will have ample opportunity to respond to the draft regulations when they are published. No doubt the noble Lord will contribute to that consultation process and we will benefit from it.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: At this late stage—after nine minutes—I would like to mention a small technical point. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, spoke to her Amendment No. 64 some time ago. I am well aware that Amendment No. 64 and Amendment No. 79 cover the same points, and that Amendments Nos. 66, 68 and 80 equally cover other points. From a purely technical point of view, I did not hear her mention any of the other amendments.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I spoke to them all
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Baroness for clarifying that. I wanted to make sure that it appeared in Hansard that we got through those nine minutes quite well.
I do not know whether the Minister made a mistake or whether the problem arose as a result of the acoustics in this Room, which I thought mere quite good, but I thought that he said that the legislation was too prescriptive, but he probably meant to say that the amendments were too prescriptive. I assume that that was a mistake. It may be inappropriate for me, sitting

CWH 95
on the opposition side, to alert the Minister to that, but I have not said anything for a while and I thought that I would say something helpful.
We are at one with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, on a point that he made. I do not think there will be many opportunities during the course of the Bill at which we are at one. The noble Lord does not really agree with the position that we are coming from, and that is fair enough. This is a difficult Bill that involves complex issues. We hear all the time about the regulations. The noble Lord mentioned a pig in the poke or something of that ilk. We should not do this kind of thing.
It is an enormous pity that we spend time looking at the complex matters in the Bill but, at the end of the day, we do not know what will happen. The Bill will probably have been agreed to before we have even had sight of the regulations, which should come in due course. That is an enormous pity. I intervene at this point to make that clear in Hansard.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friends who have supported the amendments. To some extent, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—this is a complex Bill, and it is a great pity that we do not have an opportunity to discuss the Government's intentions. At the moment, we simply do not know how it will operate in practice, and it is how it will operate in practice that matters to the individuals concerned, many of whom are vulnerable individuals. I have always believed that it is the job of politicians, in so far as we are able, to try to protect the rights of vulnerable people. People who are unemployed and those who are seeking to get rights at an ET are in that category.
My main point was that some aspects of the Bill may be regarded as deterrents. One deterrent involves the issue of costs. That point has been made to me strongly by my union and other unions and by NACAB, which believes that, if it is believed that costs can be incurred by people who are going to tribunals, that can be a major deterrent. I welcome the Government's intention that non-profit-making organisations, which include trade unions, NACAB, citizens advice bureaux and various self-help organisations, will not be charged in any way and will not incur costs for attempting to help people before tribunals. However, I believe that there is a strong case for having something to that effect on the face of the Bill, and to have an indication that paid representatives will probably face costs in a way that unpaid ones will not. That is what the amendment was about. I am sorry that this has not attracted the support from the Government that I hoped it would attract.
We shall have to look carefully at Hansard before Report stage. If the amendment's wording did not attract much support from the Government, perhaps we can think of something else. We shall certainly wish to return to this matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 65 to 69 not moved.]
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 70:
Page 32, line 25, after "may" insert "after consultation with the President of the Employment Tribunals (England and Wales) and the President of Employment Tribunals (Scotland)."
The noble Lord said: Someone said that we were at one a little while ago. We should also be at one on this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that the Government are keen on public consultation. That is the answer to all these regulations—they will be consulted on, I suggest, in a variety of ways. Therefore, our amendments contain a variety of means of consultation because we take the view that if one is going to get consultation these days, one must be precise about who will be consulted and when they will be consulted.
Clause 22 is a very important clause and we have spent a great deal of time on it. It will add new costs, expenses and imposts, and it will do so according to complicated criteria rooted in notions such as abuse, vexatiousness, negligence and so on, all of which are buried away in legal documents. As the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said, they are interpreted by cases. All of that will be put together in regulations.
We say that, before these regulations are presented to Parliament in a form in which Parliament can simply vote in favour or against them but not amend them in any way, there should be consultation with the President of employment tribunals of England and Wales and the president of the employment tribunal of Scotland. One of those gentlemen has expressed firm beliefs, convictions and criticisms of this clause and other clauses but another has not. Those gentlemen preside over the tribunal system and they have enormous experience of the working of the tribunal system. When such significant changes are being presented, surely we should he able to accept an amendment of this kind even if the Bill is cast in rough stone. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Coity: I shall have to be persuaded to accept the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord McCarthy. He may be able to answer the concern I am going to express.
I understand where he is coming from with regard to the possibility of consultation and introducing that consultation with the president of tribunals. However, if I read Clause 22(1)(1A)(c) correctly, it says:
"Employment tribunal procedure regulations may include provision for authorising an employment tribunal … (c) to order a representative of a party to proceedings before it to meet all or part of any allowances payable by the Secretary of State under section 5(2)(c) or (3) by reason of the representative's conduct of the proceedings."
The emphasis here, as I understand it, is conduct of a representative at an employment tribunal. It seems to me that only the tribunal can make an assessment of that representative's conduct and will have to take a decision on that basis. Taking consultation elsewhere

CWH 97
seems somewhat remote in as much as somebody who was not there did not witness the conduct and was not able to assess the conduct to help in making that decision.
If I have misunderstood the point, that is fine, but the amendment says quite clearly add at the end of 25 "after consultation".
Lord McCarthy: I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, has misunderstood me. We are talking about consultation on the regulations. We are not saying that Judge Prophet should be there in the tribunal, and say "I don't like that very much". After all, dozens of tribunals are conducted every day. We are saying that when the draft regulations put Clause 22 into effect they should be sent to the presidents of the tribunals for their comments.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend Lord McCarthy is right. My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity said that we might ponder on it, but he directed the point to line 24 and we are on line 25.
There is a particular point which I hope to put as delicately as possible about consultation with the presidents of the tribunals in England and Wales and in Scotland. My honourable friend in another place, Mr Johnson, distributed to a large number of your Lordships a copy of a letter which he wrote to the president in England and Wales in response to some views which the president had expressed on the Bill. He said that the president had turned down an offer of discussion with him at particular times, and chose not to respond to the public consultation.
I have it on the authority of the president for England and Wales, who has shown me his reply to the Minister, to say that he fully partook of consultations and that he did not see the Minister, Mr Johnson, but he had a long session at his request instead with the Secretary of State herself.
Perhaps that is enough on an unfortunate passage which the president assures me he brought to an end and wishes to hear no more of. However, the Minister will surely understand that those in charge of the judiciary of the tribunals do not feel particularly comfortable about the attitude of ministers in the light of that history and indeed, other matters. Therefore, it is of the greatest importance that confidence in the relationship between Ministers and the presidents of the tribunals—and also, I suspect, the appeal tribunal—should be restored and increased.
Opposition to this amendment will be understood to be a quite extraordinary concept. It will signify that there should not be consultation with the presidents in England, Wales and Scotland. In the past, there has been consultation, and the presidents of both jurisdictions have done their best to maintain consultation. Moreover, since a doubt has been raised about who should be consulting whom, on this occasion it would do no harm at all for the Government to put aside their stonemasons' implements, put aside the graven image that this Bill is rapidly becoming, and at least say that they will take away the amendment and consider it.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I want to say two things about the context of the amendment before going on to the detail.
First, as I said when we began debate on Clause 22, subsection (1B), to which the amendment refers, is unchanged from previous legislation. There is nothing new in it whatever. Secondly, although this has not been referred to at all thus far in the discussion, subsection (1B) is not about awarding costs; it is about taxing costs—that is, the amount of costs. There are established rules for the taxing of costs and subsection (1B) repeats the current provision, which allows the rules to provide for taxing or otherwise settling of costs or expenses.
The rules provide for three ways in which the costs may be assessed. First, a tribunal may refer costs awards to the county courts for a detailed assessment. In Scotland they may be taxed by reference to a part of the sheriff court table of fees. Secondly, it may order parties to agree a settlement on the amount of costs which are payable. Thirdly, it may itself decide the amount up to a limit of £10,000. Thus, there are well established procedures for the taxing of costs and we do not propose to make any change in the rules. We have made no change to the primary legislation and we do not propose to make any change to the secondary legislation.
However, we intend to consult on changes to the regulations which arise from the Bill with both the tribunal judiciary and tribunal users. We have worked closely with the tribunal judiciary on previous changes affecting the tribunal rules and we shall do so again. If we are being asked for an assurance that we shall consult the presidents on the regulations arising from Clause 22, I can certainly give that assurance. The amendment would achieve no more than what happens at present and I do not believe it to be necessary.
I do not want to rise to the stonemason argument. I said at Second Reading that we would listen carefully to any argument that the Bill introduces harriers to access to the tribunals. This provision does not erect any barriers to access to the tribunals; it does not in any way devalue the work of the tribunals; and it does not in any way achieve any supposed objective in reducing the number of cases going before the tribunals. The issue before us is simply whether the details of consultation should be on the face of the Bill or in regulations. As a matter of simple practicality, we shall stick to our last and stick to the principle that there will be a distinction between primary and secondary legislation. On that point, we have been supported by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. On that issue, we shall not move.
Lord McCarthy: That is rather stony-faced, is it not? I do not argue with people about what appears in Hansard; I go and look it up. But I do not believe that that is all that the Minister said. He said that he would listen to those things and study the amendments that we put down which he thought were designed to restrict access. If we put down amendments which

CWH 99
were not designed to prevent the restriction of access, if we put down amendments, say, to facilitate consultation, he would block his ears. I do not believe so.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No—
Lord McCarthy: That is what the Minister has just said. Let Hansard speak for us. I believe the Minister gave an offer to listen to virtually everything we said. He did not give an undertaking to do anything about it, but he gave an undertaking to listen to everything we said, and he did not qualify it in any way.
On reading the amendments, Members of the Committee probably know it is one of a series of attempts to broaden the scope of consultation; and to broaden the scope of consultation not by taking away the assurances of the Government—we take them away—but also by having something on the face of the Bill. It is an attempt also to try to put something slightly less into regulations, and something slightly more into the statute itself.
I hear what the Minister says. I hear that the Minister is not moving. I know that at this point we have to withdraw the amendment, and that I do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 71:
Page 32, line 29, at end insert—
"(1C) Employment tribunal procedure regulations shall (except as provided in subsection (1D)) require an applicant on the lodgement of a claim to pay a deposit to the tribunal of such sum as the Secretary of State may from time to time by order prescribe (not being less than £100).
(1D) The regulations may provide for exemptions for payment in whole or in part by persons in receipt of such benefits as the Secretary of State may from time to time prescribe, and the Secretary of State may revocably delegate a discretionary power to the Secretary of Employment Tribunals to exempt individual applicants from the payment of all or any part of the deposit on compassionate grounds or on the grounds of exceptional hardship.
(1E) Such deposit shall be refundable or forfeited in whole or in part at the discretion of the tribunal after considering the reasonableness of the applicant's case and the manner of its conduct.
(1F) The tribunal may order the refund of all or any portion of the deposit notwithstanding that the claim is dismissed by them in whole or in part.
(1G) Any part of a deposit forfeited under this clause shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 71, I would like to say at the outset that I understand from several things that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, said yesterday, and indeed in passing today, that he will not like this amendment at all. The only thing that I would say before I launch into an explanation of my amendment is that I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, and indeed perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and anyone else who feels similarly minded, that I am moving this
CWH 100
amendment from my perspective in good faith. I will accept whatever the noble Lords opposite say and feel in exactly the same way.
I appreciate that there are certain parts of the Bill that we both see differently, and I understand the experience which the noble Lords opposite bring. I have, I suppose, from an entirely different point of view. Having said that, it is a probing amendment in so far as I am very interested in hearing what the Minister has to say about their views and feelings on this subject.
In July 2001, the Government published a consultation paper in which they said:
"The Government believes it is reasonable for applicants to pay some of the costs of bringing a case … The civil courts impose charges at various stages through the system. There are equally various stages throughout the life of an employment tribunal case where charges could be levied … A successful applicant would recover the charge as an addition to the award".
The consultation paper went on to propose an alternative; either a "hearing deposit" or,
"whether to charge for applications to the Employment Appeals Tribunal".
I am sorry to burden Members of the Committee with a further quotation from that same discussion paper, but it makes my case far better than I could. The Government stated:
"Charging would inevitably impact on the behaviour of the parties. It would encourage potential users to reflect seriously whether to take their case to tribunal or whether to seek to resolve the dispute in the workplace".
I believe that it would. Apart from concentrating the mind of the parties it will in addition to the compulsory conciliation procedure being introduced by this Bill inhibit the launching of frivolous and vexatious claims.
I entirely accept that there is no purpose whatever in the Government publishing discussion papers merely in the hope of having their preconceived views endorsed. Equally, it would make a mockery of the consultation process if the Government were to ignore the representations they have received as a result of their consultation paper.
In this case, the Government's response to the consultation took the view, that:
"there was a substantial opposition to the proposal to introduce a charging regime".
That was the view of two-thirds of those who had commented on the consultation paper.
I do not know who was consulted but the validity of this piece of research is totally flawed by the fact that although the closing date for response to the consultation was 8th October, the Government, in the person of the Secretary of State, announced early in September that they were withdrawing the proposals to charge. That was done before the end of the consultation.
The significance of the date of the Government's premature shutting off of the consultation is that—and I know that Members of the Committee opposite

CWH 101
will know that this is a fact—it occurred at the time of the Trades Unions Council's annual meeting. As the Guardian so rightly stated on 5th September:
"Tony Blair has sanctioned his first political retreat since the election by bowing to union opposition to impose charges on applicants to Employment Tribunals … the issue was threatening to engulf Mr Blair and Ms Hewitt who are due to speak to the TUC conference in Brighton next week".
I shall look forward to the Minister's explanation of the real reason why the Government dropped the charging proposal. It will be very interesting to know. In any case, perhaps I may say that my amendment totally bypasses the question of a charging regime. All it calls for is a one-off fee for launching an application to the tribunal, identical to what the Government stated in the consultation paper they were considering in relation to the appeals tribunal.
In anticipation of the inevitable response that it might inhibit potential poor claimants, perhaps I may point out that any litigant before the civil court has to pay a filing fee on launching a claim.
Furthermore, my amendment has been drafted carefully—I will not say elegantly, having learnt a lesson yesterday from the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn—to include a number of essential safeguards for any claimant.
First, the Secretary of State will fix the amount of a deposit which, in the words of the consultation paper, is not excessive. I had supposed initially that it would be a fairly nominal £100. I accept that, whether that is a nominal sum is certainly dependent on the potential applicant's means. Let us not forget that there have been well-publicised tribunal cases with disgruntled employees who were earning five and six figures salaries, complaining about constructive dismissal, sexual discrimination and so on.
Secondly, the amendment provides for the Secretary of State to grant exception to benefit recipients plus—and this is an important point—for individuals to be granted exemption on a case-by-case basis on compassionate or hardship grounds. Thus, anyone who would be inhibited by the fee would certainly not have to pay it.
Thirdly, the deposit is refundable at the tribunal's discretion, even if the applicant loses.
The object of this amendment is, frankly, just to discourage a vexatious or vindictive claimant with no real case. Ii is intended to discourage a claimant who realises that he or she does not have a case, but thinks that the employer might think it worth doing something to stop the trouble. In the words of the Government's own consultation paper, it would,
"encourage potential users to consider whether to take their case to a tribunal or whether to seek to resolve the complaint within the workplace.
I started by saying that this was a probing amendment, in the sense that I would very much like to have the Government's thinking on this. In the amendment I have tried—and I hope I have succeeded in the drafting—to ensure that it should not be a cause
CWH 102
of inhibiting someone who ought to be able to go to a tribunal, but who does not have the means for this nominal fee that I have spoken of. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: I want to say three things to the noble Baroness. The first is on her point about it all being done at the TUC. Maybe it was. There are some people who are consulted by the Government all the time. The TUC is consulted most of the time. The CBI is never out of the place. There are some people who just get consulted—they consult the doctors when they are putting in medical laws. There are some people whose interests are so central and who are so influential and important that they are consulted all the time. They see drafts of legislation long before simple, under-handed, "small" people—people like you and I—ever see them. That is no doubt what happened in this case, but you cannot get all worked up about it because, of course, the Conservative government did it when they were in power. All governments consult critical groups.
6 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I have n o objection at all to any consultation with anybody. The point I was making was that the consultation was meant to end on 8th October. Surprisingly, it was all of a sudden cut short and announced in September, just at the time of the TUC conference, that they were abandoning that proposal. That was the point I was making, purely on the consultation.
Lord McCarthy: I am trying to explain why it happened. The consultation on Routes to Resolution concerns the whole of the Bill. It mentions everything in the Bill. It is for anybody who wants it. I was foolish enough to write in and I got there before 8th October.
The noble Baroness is perfectly right. It was no good writing anything about the matters in her amendment because that had been decided, but there were many other things still to be decided, and other people could consult on that if they wished. It is no good getting cross because all governments do this, because some things are fixed in advance with interested parties. That is life. That is the first point.
The second point is that this proposal that is being put forward is not novel. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, in 1986, as a Conservative Minister, proposed exactly the same thing, and he has told us that he was discouraged, partly because he decided it was unfair. He said that poor people could not afford it and it would discourage the kind of litigant that needed to be encouraged. After all, 80 per cent of litigants do not have a trades union, they have no support; all they have is the CAB, if they can go there. He was persuaded, perhaps by his officials, that the measure would be unfair. When he went into the facts in order to make it work, or to make it less unfair, he might have thought it would be a good idea to provide a means-tested allowance. Figures were produced to show what it would cost to collect the money in question and to show that it was not administratively worthwhile. He therefore decided not to do that. I dare

CWH 103
say that for exactly the same reasons the civil servants dug up the same file and gave it to the relevant Ministers, who read it and said, "Oh yes, I see". So it all went out.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend appreciates that in the eyes of the noble Baroness the matter is much more sinister because in 1986 the TUC produced powerful arguments to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, to rescind his proposals.
Lord McCarthy: That is all perfectly true and they were put away in the file.
The third point is that the noble Baroness commented a great deal—and I am forced to say this—on vexatious claims. She invents new amendments to cut back the flow of vexatious claims. The one thing we can say—even SETA, dear old SETA 1998—is that there are virtually no vexatious claims. According to the tribunals, 0.4 per cent of hearings are based on vexatious claims. If the noble Baroness wants to do all this to get rid of this infinitesimal number of vexatious claims, she will have to get a new word.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: One aspect of this that has not been mentioned—and I would like to know whether the Minister has any statistics on it—is that of people who file a case and fail to turn up. I have very frequently sat there with all the hours that were allotted for a case, and five people appearing to fight the case, only to find the applicant did not come. He thought it was not worth his while or he had another job, or there was some other reason why he did not turn up. I certainly believe that there is a deterrent element in the £100. I do not consider that the amount is very great and most people could borrow it, although there may genuinely be some people who cannot.
Yesterday, when I went to Camelot, they told me that one of the first lottery winners could only get a lift as far as Watford and had to walk from Watford to the Camelot office in order to claim his winnings. So there are people who genuinely cannot afford this sum and perhaps cannot borrow it from anyone else, but I feel that they are covered by the other categories in here. It is a serious matter to waste a tribunal's time. It may have half a day or even a whole day allocated for a case and then finds it cannot proceed with that case and does not have another to replace it in some instances. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us how regularly that happens.
Lord Davies of Coity: If I may start on that point, in my experience it is not only applicants who have a monopoly on not turning up. Employers on occasions are not represented at tribunals and there is a considerable record of cases being adjudicated on by a tribunal on the basis of one or the other of the parties not turning up. So it is a one-sided decision and sometimes that has been appealed against. Such cases have come before me on occasions, and there is nothing I can do about it, as it is in the discretion of the tribunal to act in accordance with the rules.
CWH 104
This is a heavy-handed amendment, wanting applicants to put down a deposit. It will deter many poor applicants from making a claim in the first place, even though their application may be well and truly just.
It is my belief that there is already provision—and the Minister may wish to confirm this—within the existing rules for employment tribunals whereby in some cases better and further particulars are sought. They are then offered a preliminary hearing and a tribunal might very well say to an applicant, "This case does not appear to be sound and, if you are to progress it, we will take it but you must lodge a deposit". That provision, as I understand it, already exists in the tribunal rules.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I also raise the point with the noble Baroness that she says in the second paragraph of her amendment,
"and the Secretary of State may revocably delegate a discretionary power to the Secretary of Employment Tribunals to exempt individual applicants from the payment of all or any part of the deposit on compassionate grounds or on the grounds of exceptional hardship."
How would that "exceptional hardship" be decided upon? Would the individual have to submit to some sort of means test?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: In my speech on the very point that the noble Baroness has raised, I said that it would be up to the tribunal to decide to waive it if they thought that it was necessary to waive it, and they would have to work out their own rules. It is not a question of a means test, as the noble Baroness puts it. I was trying to suggest that, if there are people who could not pay the £100 fee, there might he some way of considering how they may be helped.
I started by saying this is a probing amendment. I am interested to know what the Government feel about the matter and why they dropped it. In another place, they said that of the people with whom they consulted there was a preponderance of those who did not want it and so it was dropped.
I would say to noble Lords opposite that I do not know about matters that are fixed beforehand and whether the consultation was a "fix". They were as surprised as I was that that was the case. However, it seems extraordinary to me that the consultation document was issued in July and there was a final day for that consultation, which was 8th October. So, at most, we are talking about a three-month consultation. However, a few days before on 5th September, by the time of the TUC conference, it was announced that the decision had already been made. There were still over four weeks to go for people to say what their views were but the Government decided to drop it.
I do not know whether that is the normal way of things. Members of the Committee opposite have said that they would be surprised even to comment on it. It seems extraordinary that in a three-month consultation with something like five weeks left to go and people might still be wanting to send in their views

CWH 105
on that particular point—and that was one of the most contentious points—all of a sudden a decision can be made. If that is the case, there is no point at all in having consultations with dates fixed.
This is quite a serious matter because ultimately, I would assume that the Government knew, when they issued the consultation document, that the Trades Union Conference would be on 5th September. I find the whole thing turns out to be something of a sham. Having said that, I was interested to know what the Government were going to offer as their reason for changing it. I heard the noble Lord say that this was something that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, had raised in 1985 to 1986 and he believed that the officials just dug it out of somewhere and put it in front of the Minister. He said that it was a good idea and they would have a three-month consultation—
Lord McCarthy: No. I did not say that!
Baroness Miller of Hendon: No. I am saying that! The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said that he assumed that the officials had perhaps brought it up again and thought it was a good idea. The rest is my interpretation. So what happens thereafter is that a consultation document arrives. Three months is given for it. The Government must have known in advance that if there were objections from the TUC they would probably drop. Members of the Committee opposite have said that these things are often decided—and I would not have known it—way before the consultation document. They know what is going to go in. It seems rather a farce, therefore, even to have the consultation document.
I would be grateful to hear from the Minister his exact views on the whole matter—when it was decided to do it and why it was decided to cut short a three-month consultation after five weeks.
Baroness O'Cathain: Just on a point about consultation documents and whether or not they have any legal force at all: I have been involved with consultation documents for many years and if the plug had been pulled on a consultation document before I had submitted my remarks, I would have been very angry indeed. As a matter of interest, do consultation documents have any validity or are they just bits of fluff? Can they actually say that they are going to allow three months to consult then after 10 days say that the consultation is over? It brings us all into disrepute.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Baroness knows better than anyone else in this House that the CBI got its bit in and it is reflected in the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know whether I have any role in this? I thought the debate was going rather well. There are two issues to be addressed; first, the history and, secondly, the substance. The history is relatively straightforward and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is right about the timing. Consultation is not a legal document. There is nothing which says that you cannot bring consultation to an end early, if you wish, or extend it, although in fact we did not do either.
CWH 106
In fact, it became clear very early on—and Ministers saw the early responses—that there was a very substantial response to this consultation and substantial opposition to the proposal to introduce a charging regime. Over 70 per cent of those who commented, including some employers, opposed it. That included organisations with most experience of dealing with applicants, which included for example the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which said:
"The Citizens Advice Bureaux Service strongly opposes this proposal. Even with the sort of discretionary exemptions proposed in Routes to Resolution, the proposed fees would inevitably act to deter would-be applicants with well-founded cases".
That, as far as I am concerned, is quite powerful evidence. That was available and it is true that Ministers took an early view and announced it to the TUC Congress in September. In fact, the final analysis of the consultation after 8th October carne to very much the same conclusions as those drawn earlier.
I turn now to the substance of the amendment. The deposit system which is proposed is simply charging by another name. If a substantial number of applicants would have difficulty in paying an upfront charge, they would have difficulty in paying a deposit. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, talked about discouraging vexatious applicants, but throughout the Bill there are various procedures for discouraging vexatious applicants. The fundamental point was rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, who said they are insignificant in number—the figure was 247 out of 130,000, which includes the people who do not turn up. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that this really is not a serious problem in numerical terms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has built into the amendment a provision for exempting applicants who are in receipt of specified benefits or suffering exceptional hardship. If we take the two most common complaints—unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages complaints—it is clear that because of the nature of employment tribunals many applicants will be covered by these exemptions. It is not just wrong in the sense that it would deter people from going to tribunals, but it is also misconceived in the effect that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, would wish it to have. It would place an administrative burden on the tribunal system which would mean that they would have to consider the merits of each case and the circumstances of each applicant.
My noble friend Lord Davies was quite right in reminding us that there is already a system for weeding out cases which have no prospect of success, through the pre-hearing review. A tribunal may request a deposit as a condition of proceeding with the case. Those are satisfactory answers on the substance.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the Minister sits down, he has given a very clear answer as to why the Government changed their mind, but he has not answered what I asked at the beginning: what was the

CWH 107
Government's thinking in bringing this forward? If it is so unnecessary, or if there are so few vexatious claims, or if there are other ways of dealing with them, what was the Government's motivation to put down such a clause in the consultation paper?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If you consult people, you consult them on a range of options, even if you have a very clear idea about what some of them might mean—otherwise consultation is meaningless. You do not just put forward the ideas that are strongly in your mind, but you put forward a range of ideas reflecting the range of views out there in the world. This had been proposed and indeed it was one of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Young, proposed in 1986. It is proper that it should be within the spectrum of consultation.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I will accept what the Minister says but I thought that the words, so strongly put in the consultation document suggesting that this was a way forward, were good enough for me to quote in my amendment. I did not think I could word it better. In the consultation paper, the Government showed an enormous enthusiasm for something that was just one side of the battle—it could be yes or it could be no. I find it quite an extraordinary answer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know how I am supposed to respond to that. Is one supposed to put forward the proposals that are towards the edge of the spectrum, in a deliberately discouraging way? It does not make any sense.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 72:
Page 32, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) The regulations shall provide that before a tribunal makes an order within subsection (1A)(a) or (b), it shall afford the representative a reasonable opportunity to give reasons why it should not make the order."
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been touched upon in substance by what has passed already today. It concerns wasted costs orders and it concerns a matter of natural justice.
Wasted costs orders, we are told, will be approached on the same basis as the rules in the High Court. Therefore, one turns to Rule 48.7 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, made under the Supreme Court Act 1981, which was added to by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
Under that Act, there is a very clear rule, which is printed as Rule 48.7(2) of the White Book, or Rules of the Supreme Court. I quote as follows:
"The court must give the legal representative a reasonable opportunity to attend a hearing to give reasons why it should not make such an order".
CWH 108
That is an order to disallow the costs or expenses of the representative. In other words, it is precisely the territory which is covered by Clause 22(1A)(a) or (b). We have a precise parallel with the area, and a precise parallel as to what the rule should be. Indeed, the Explanatory Notes to the Bill say that it is intended that regulations will include safeguards to allow the representative the opportunity to put his or her case on any proposed award of wasted costs. I know that we shall be told that that will be made clear in the regulations.
With regard to that particular point, it is our submission that regulations are not enough, if for no other reason than regulations will no doubt be able to be changed by a future Secretary of State. We do not believe that this rule should be open to change. We are discussing cases in which a representative of a party has wasted costs awarded against him. We have touched on the grounds for such an award. They are rather more limited than the Minister seemed to appreciate, but they concern a person being negligent or acting improperly, vexatiously or unreasonably. I include, in particular, legal representatives, and that has not escaped the notice of the Law Society and other bodies concerned with the profession.
Such accusations are serious and, as a matter of natural justice, a representative of a party against whom wasted costs are threatened must have the opportunity to reply. He should not simply have an opportunity to reply based on regulations which can then take that opportunity away, but an opportunity to reply based on legislation. If a government then want to take away that fair opportunity to be heard, they must explain to Parliament the reason for doing so.
I know that we have touched on the problem of regulations in previous debates on the Bill, but this is a specific point. I hesitate—I shall explain why—to raise too strongly Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is now a precept that we must follow by reason of the Human Rights Act. The obvious point is that people against whom a case is made should pay for wasted costs because they have acted improperly in their professional work. They should be afforded a full and fair hearing on that matter. Obeying the injunction upon counsel and anybody else to cite cases which may seem to be against that submission, I refer to the case that is mentioned in the White Book, the Rules of the Supreme Court, which is cited as The Queen v. The United Kingdom, case 10615 of 1983. I quote what the White Book summarises as the effect of that European judgment:
"The making of a wasted costs order does not breach the European Convention on Human Rights nor does it raise an issue under the European Convention of Human Rights Article VI paragraph 1."
That decision in 1983, and a reference to it now, however, includes the fact that our procedure resolutely states on the basis of statute that there will be an opportunity for the legal representative to answer the charge that he has acted so improperly that a wasted costs order must be made. In my submission, it would be profoundly resented by all of those who act

CWH 109
as representatives of parties in the employment tribunals—and, indeed, in the appeals tribunal, too—if statute did not make it clear that Parliament accepted that an accusation of improper conduct that gave rise to a wasted costs order should not be enshrined in statute in the form that the representative had the right of natural justice to be heard on that matter before any order is made.
It is totally inadequate to say that such a right—based, I submit, on Article 6 of the convention—is merely to be dealt with in regulations that can be here today and gone tomorrow. I trust that the Ministers will accept that this at least is something that they should take away and look at with approval. They should accept that our statute law should enshrine such basic principles so that we can all have confidence in the way that the law will be administered. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As is so often the case in these Committee, there are two separate issues here—although in this case there are probably three separate issues. The first issue is the substance of the amendment itself and the second is the issue of whether the substance should be in primary or secondary legislation. The third issue is that of compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Let me start with the issue of substance. We are wholeheartedly in agreement with the substance of this amendment. It is a valuable safeguard that representatives should not be on the receiving end of a wasted costs order without having an opportunity to put their case to the tribunal. We fully intend to give representatives such a right when we draw up the regulations on wasted costs. I do not think that there is anything between us on that.
I turn to the issue of whether that should be in primary or secondary legislation. There is an analogy with the civil courts, where wasted costs orders are already provided for. Representatives have a right to put forward their arguments about why a wasted costs order should not be made against them.
In the civil courts—this is also our proposal—that right is set out in secondary legislation. We will have regard for the established principles and practice of the civil courts in drawing up the regulations on wasted costs for employment tribunals, where they are appropriate. There is no difficulty about that. As the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, rightly said, that is already referred to in the Explanatory Notes.
The third issue is about whether the right for representatives to put their case on a wasted costs order is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed its satisfaction with the Bill's compliance, including the provision that this should be an amendment—that is referred to in the Explanatory Notes. It is therefore satisfied that it is sufficient for compliance that the provisions should be in the regulations.
CWH 110
We are not sure whether the right of representation is necessary for compliance with the Human Rights Act. That is arguable either way. However, because we are going to give representatives the right, the question does not arise. In any case, if a question of giving assurances to Parliament is involved, it has for some time now been the practice of this Government, and will continue to be the practice of this Government—indeed, it will continue to be required to be t he practice of this Government—to give an assurance on each occasion when secondary legislation comes before Parliament, and an assurance that the provision is in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to my noble friend. However, one very important aspect is not made clear by his careful explanation. The Rules of the Supreme Court in the White Book are not able to be changed merely by some regulation that emanates from a Secretary of State. At least, it is my understanding that this is a matter that the judges would pass on in their counsel. Is the Minister giving us an assurance that when that regulation is made it will provide specially, and specifically, that the assent of presidents of the tribunals or of senior judges of the appeal tribunal and others will be needed if any change—or at least any change that is less favourable to the representative—will in future be made?
If that is not so, it is difficult to perceive how this provision, which would relate merely to a regulation that could be changed, was fully in conformity with the spirit—and, indeed, the letter—of Article 6. I have to admit I have not seen on paper the arguments of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. However, why it should be satisfied with the idea of not putting that in the Bill mystifies me.
Will the regulations have the sacrosanct character of the Rules of the Supreme Court in the White Book? That is my central point. Will they be unalterable except with the agreement of the judicial authorities who administer the tribunals and the appeals tribunal?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not certain that the White Book is any more sacrosanct than a regulation. If the judiciary can change it, the judiciary can change it. What we are saying is that it will be in regulation, which would have to have the approval of Parliament. In coming before Parliament, it would have to include an assurance that it was in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The noble Lord was worried about whether there should be consultation with the presidents of the tribunals before any change was made. That is worth thinking about and I will certainly think about it between now and Report.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful for that chink in the stone, and I appreciate fully what my noble friend said on this matter on behalf of the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): In calling Amendment No. 73, I have to inform the Committee that, if it were to be agreed, it would pre-empt Amendments Nos. 74, 75 and 76.
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 73:
Page 32, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 73 is grouped with Amendment No. 74. It may be appropriate if I explain why I wish to address Amendment No. 74 before Amendment No. 73.
Amendment No. 73 would leave out Clause 22(2), which inserts a new section concerning preparation time into the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. I shall explain in a moment why we would prefer to leave it out—we are not alone in thinking that it should be left out. The amendment to that new section proposed in Amendment No. 74 would confine the power to award preparation time costs, as I shall call them, to cases where costs are awardable at present—namely, as the amendment states,
"where in the opinion of the tribunal that party has in bringing the proceedings, or that party or the party's representative has in conducting the proceedings, acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably, or in the bringing or conducting of the proceedings the party has been misconceived."
It is undoubtedly my fault that the word "by" has been omitted. I shall offer it in manuscript if I have the opportunity to do so.
The trouble with new Section 13A proposed for the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 is three-fold. It is confusing, as the Explanatory Notes show; its content is unreasonable; and its effects would be quite unfair. I invite noble Lords to look at new Section 13A on page 32. It states:
"Employment tribunal procedure regulations may include provision for authorising an employment tribunal to order a party to proceedings before it to make a payment to any other party in respect of the time spent by that other party in preparing his case."
We shall come to the question of who is "another party" in a later amendment.
I turn to the term "a payment". The Explanatory Notes begin by calling it "compensation"—that is the heading. But they go on to say that it will be awarded in a case where costs could be avoided. Therefore, Amendment No. 74 takes up that offer—perhaps by now Members of the Committee will be wearied by this—but states that it should be set out on the face of the Bill. This is such an important point that manifestly it should he on the face of the Bill because this is an entirely new jurisdiction. Indeed, the Law Society points out that this is a jurisdiction which goes far beyond the civil law in any other court to award a payment for preparation time—not legal costs, not any other heading of known costs but preparation time. The Law Society points out that the concept goes beyond what applies in the civil courts. When one reads the proceedings in another place, it is sometimes difficult to know what the Government's view is on that. There were suggestions—I put it no higher—that this is just in accordance with ordinary county court or
CWH 112
High Court procedure. That is not the view that the profession takes and is certainly not the view that I would submit to the Committee.
The Minister in another place spoke of the need to help an applicant who had no help at all in filling out the form, sitting at the breakfast table. We will hear more about the forms later because they will get more complicated. I have little sympathy with that but that is not the problem, as the Law Society has pointed out. The Law Society and others have said that preparation time awards will of course impact upon applicants proportionately far more because respondents will say that they are entitled to a payment for their preparation time. That is what the Bill says.
The Explanatory Notes go on to say that the respondent will not have to prove how much preparation time was spent on the case. I said at Second Reading that there is a certain tremor of trepidation about how much will be charged for the noble Lord, Lord Simpson, at Marconi to deal with a case coming across his desk in 10 minutes. There is a maximum of £10,000 but a number of applicants will feel threatened by the risk of preparation time payments—not costs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Simpson, is an applicant, not an employer!
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend knows all about that. I am an amateur in such matters. I noticed in today's newspapers mention of the noble Lord, Lord Browne; perhaps that would be a better example. The point is that I, as an applicant going to a tribunal, will be faced with a Bill that says regulations are going to be made whereby the other party can demand the payment for the time he spent in preparing their case. As the Law Society says,
"Although this provision is couched in language that applies equally to both parties, it is likely to impact disproportionately on applicants. In almost every case, an applicant will be exposed to the risk of a greater costs award than the respondent".
With great respect to the Law Society, at least it deals with the matter as though it were a matter of costs. But of course it is not expressed as costs, although it would be if Amendment No. 74 were accepted. Even if it were restricted to cases where the other party has acted vexatiously, this is subfusc costs expressed as a payment. This is part of the pressure. It is no good Ministers telling me that there is no pressure. Are they prepared to say what the CBI wants? Are they prepared to say what advice they have from the National Federation of Small Businesses, or from the Institute of Directors, or indeed the Chambers of Commerce on the question of costs? Will they tell us what has really been said about costs? Everybody in the business knows that there is enormous pressure to get more payments out of applicants. This special sui generis payment is a species of subfusc costs advanced under arguments which are hopelessly unreasonable.
The case for preparation time is such that the Law Society proposed that Clause 22(2) should be deleted. I therefore advance it on behalf of the arguments advanced by the Law Society. It is no good telling me

CWH 113
that this is some curious academic or political concept that has been dreamed up in the middle of the night. The author of this notion must have had a nightmare to have put forward such an extraordinary idea.
Why is it disguised as a mere payment, and a payment which is not even going to be measured by the loss which has been suffered, because the Explanatory Notes make it clear that the regulations will say not that there should be any assessment of loss? On the contrary, they state:
"It is not intended that the parties should have to prove how much time they have spent preparing for a case, but that the tribunal should make an assessment based on guidelines to be set out in the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure".
So it is not just a payment, it is an arbitrary payment. It is not what the party has actually lost in preparing the case but according to the rules dreamed up by the Secretary of State a priori. It is nothing to do with what has really happened, merely the penalty on the applicant, as the Law Society says, because it will apply to applicants disproportionately.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: I have just been looking at the Explanatory Notes because the noble Lord quoted part of them at paragraph 63. It states:
"power by regulations to authorise tribunals to order that one party make a payment to the other in respect of the time spent by that other party in preparing his or her case".
Therefore they would surely have to produce evidence about the time spent.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With great respect to the noble Baroness, I hope I quoted and read accurately, but in case I did not I shall read again what the Explanatory Notes state. Paragraph 63 states:
"It is not intended that the parties should have to prove how much time they have spent preparing for a case"—
I interpose that I am interested in what will really happen. They continue:
"but that the tribunal should make an assessment based on guidelines to be set out in the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure".
If the noble Baroness is confused by the Explanatory Notes, then to some extent so am I because I cannot see any justification in that rule of thumb just to give money to someone on the basis of an a priori set of rules drawn up by the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness really must try and suspend disbelief.
It is not a case of assuming that money should necessarily be demanded from the applicant—there is no presumption that that should be so. This subsection is a new type of penalty. It is not put forward as costs, although Amendment No. 74 would demand that it be limited to costs—and that should be on the face of the Bill if anything should.
It is not demanded as compensation—I have hesitated to raise that but I will mention it. There has been a big argument in Committee in another place about whether there is a possibility of double recovery. It did not seem to me that the arguments advanced were necessarily knocked down, although they had
CWH 114
some substance. I put aside the point of double recovery, that the party who is claiming for preparation compensation—if it is compensation—could possibly get double recovery in some way as an applicant. I did not think they were very strong.
Although it is headed "Compensation" in the Explanatory Notes, it does not involve real compensation. Although it is said to operate where costs are awarded, it does not involve real costs; it involves the payment for preparation and lime. Ii is a new species of civil penalty. On that basis, I submit that it is wholly unreasonable to introduce a general proposition of the kind that Clause 22(2) advances, in particular because it is not limited in the Bill to cases in which costs can be awarded. Even if it were so limited, it is for the reasons given by the Law Society an unfair and disproportionate provision which would, as they say, take the practice in employment tribunals for calculating costs awarded beyond that of the civil courts. We are not even talking about being parallel in costs with the civil courts; we are talking about going beyond the civil courts, which do not include non-legal costs in their awards.
I tabled a Question on 9th January which I will read to Members of the Committee. I asked Her Majesty's Government,
"whether any awards of costs have been made in the last five years in respect of time spent by a party in preparing his or her case—

(a) where the party was legally represented; or,

(b) where the party was not so represented,

in any of the following—

(i) planning inquiries;

(ii) tribunals; and

(iii) courts;

and, if so, on what principles and authority these awards were made and what was the range of amounts involved in such awards".
I give away no secrets; when I was asked what on earth my Question was about, I advised those who inquired that they were about page 32, lines 30 to 35 of the Employment Bill.
I have not had a reply to my Question. If the Minister has a reply this evening, I shall be interested to hear it. I suspect that the answer is that no such awards are made in courts or tribunals. Among those whom I have consulted are experts on costs. They intimated to me that sometimes in a planning inquiry there could be such an award for preparation time. However, when I asked to see the legal basis for such an award, I did not get further than being told that that was done on normal legal principles. I know of no such principle; I know of no such practice. The Law Society is surely right that this goes far beyond normal legal practice and the best thing to do with Clause 22(2) is to remove it from the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I do not intend to speak at length to this amendment because the Minister heard me speak on it earlier in relation to Amendment No. 65. I oppose the amendment and would like it left in the Bill as it stands.

CWH 115
I was concerned to see in the Explanatory Notes—this may apply only to the earlier part—a reference to excluding the not-for-profit sector. That does not apply to new subsection 13A(2). However, I draw attention to the fact that according to the Explanatory Notes, the award could be made only in circumstances in which a costs award was to be made. I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton—if that is the case, it would be better if that was clearly stated in the Bill.
I do not agree with Amendment No. 74, which spells out particular categories. It would be good to see how it was related. A power is involved—I refer to the phrase, "it may include"—but if it was limited to cases in which costs were to be awarded, that would be better.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: First, the Government owe an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for not having replied to his Question of 9th January. The amount of time that has passed is quite unacceptable and I shall pursue the matter immediately. I suspect that the delay is due to the fact that the information required comes from a number of different sources. That is an excuse but not an adequate reason.
As is so often the case, this matter involves issues on the substance of the amendment—or, in this case, the amendments—and the issue of whether matters should be set out in regulations or on the face of the Bill. I start by acknowledging what is clearly the fear behind the amendment—that is, that the new provision for preparation time will impact harshly, particularly on applicants, and will deter genuine complaints. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn and Members of the Committee have received an assurance that it is not our intention to reduce the number of tribunal cases by deterring applicants in that way. We have sympathy with the thinking behind the amendment.
I turn to what is proposed in new Section 13A and in the regulations for which it provides. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is right—it is, indeed, proposed that regulations will provide that compensation for preparation time shall apply only in circumstances when costs can apply. That brings me to the most important point of my response. Costs awarded in tribunals are absolutely minimal. They are neither frequent nor very high.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am most grateful to my noble friend, but it might be convenient if we tried to deal with precisely that point. When courts are faced with different words in different provisions of a statute, they tend to believe that different meanings are attached. If new Section 13A refers to costs, why does it not say so? Any court faced with the word "payment" will assume—at any rate, to begin with—that it means something different from "costs". I appreciate that the court will have to look at the regulations. The noble Baroness looks astounded, but there is a perfectly normal presumption that if I say
CWH 116
"costs" in one section and "payments" in another, I mean something different from "costs", otherwise I would have said "costs".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may develop my argument.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps I may just complete my point. If my noble friend wants to make this "costs", why does he not say so?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to make it "costs". If I am allowed to develop my argument, the position will become much clearer. Costs are very rare. There were only 247 awards last year, averaging only £300.
The other point that I wish to make is that costs are not only made against applicants. Last year, two-thirds of the awards were made against applicants, but in other years the proportion has been more even between applicants and respondents. However, a safeguard against unreasonable behaviour is provided for parties in a system which is otherwise very open and accessible, as it should be.
It must be right that, where a party has been taken unnecessarily to a tribunal, or has had to resort to litigation because of an unscrupulous employer, there should be a way of redressing that. Perhaps I may underline that with a real example. An employer was ordered by a tribunal to pay costs to an applicant after the tribunal found that the employer had acted entirely unreasonably. The employer had not even given a reason for the dismissal and, furthermore, the tribunal concluded that the investigation which preceded the dismissal was biased, unreasonable and breached the rules of natural justice. Surely it was right that the employee in that case should be compensated for the losses that he incurred as a result of his employer's unreasonable conduct in defending a series of actions which were indefensible. I know that there is concern among the groups which represent applicants.
7 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps I may—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is much better if I develop my argument.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Minister is making some bad points.
Lord McCarthy: The Minister is telling us of a case where the existing law seems to have dealt with the matter extremely well, yet there was a case for a further measure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Exactly. I am describing the circumstances in which costs are legitimate. I think we have agreement that it is legitimate to award costs under certain circumstances. I want now to describe the circumstances in which payments—they are not the same as costs—will also be legitimate. In terms of how it will be controlled it is right, as has been said, that we will address the issue

CWH 117
through the provision of guidance for tribunal users on how the costs regime applies. If we make clear to tribunal users exactly how it applies, we will dispel some of the inaccurate messages which employers or their representatives are putting out to intimidate applicants.
Under current rules, parties may only recover costs which they have actually incurred and costs awards primarily cover legal expenses. There is no power to compensate a party in respect of time they have spent preparing for a tribunal. Legal representation is not the normal procedure in tribunals. Most users and in particular applicants do not engage lawyers. Less than a third of respondents are legally represented and less than a quarter of applicants. So the present system is not even-handed towards applicants, who are less likely to engage a lawyer. The introduction of preparation time will help to address and correct this situation, rather than making it worse.
Preparing for a tribunal can be time consuming and costly, particularly when a party is pursuing its case without a representative and must undertake all the work in his or her own time. There has been research to suggest that the average amount of time spent by applicants preparing their case is 42 hours and a half of all applicants spend longer than 20 hours of their own time preparing for a case. The new provision will help us to give tribunals the option of recognising this and compensating the parties accordingly.
Tribunal allowances already cover loss of earnings for attendance at the tribunal, so why should there not be the possibility of compensation for preparing for it? Similarly, an employer or one of his staff may have to set aside part of his working day to prepare the defence and for the hearing. Preparation time will cover the time a party has spent gathering information and documents for the case, speaking to witnesses and preparing for the hearing. It may also recognise that a party has had to devote time to a case unnecessarily, which could have been more productively spent elsewhere.
Compensation for case preparation will not be limited to actual expenditure. That is why we are talking about payments rather than costs. We doubt that it is possible or sensible to assess preparation time by a precise calculation of loss in every case. We cannot keep records and it may not involve any actual expenditure.
In an unfair dismissal case where the applicant is unemployed, it would not be appropriate to award preparation time compensation for the actual expenditure because there might not be any. It might, however, be appropriate to order some form of compensation to the applicant in recognition of the time spent in preparing for the case as a result of the respondent's unreasonable actions.
We intend to set out in the regulations guidelines for assessing case preparation compensation. We will consider a range of tools to ensure that case preparation compensation is reasonable. For example, fixed amounts, ranges of amounts by reference to different jurisdictions, linking assessments to the
CWH 118
applicant's rate of pay or former rate of pay, and the remuneration of the employee of the respondent who dealt with the matter. We will also consider capping awards in respect of preparation time.
We also provide in the regulations that, where a tribunal intends to set the amount of a costs award and also intends to make an award of preparation time, the total amount will not exceed the current limit on costs awards. We will take great care in framing the regulations and we will of course consult.
I have said some new things here. I have said—which may not have been said before—that the total amount of payments that can be made for preparation time, added to the costs award, cannot exceed the current limit for costs awards. I have made clear that costs awards are very rare and the amounts of money are very small. Therefore, it is clear that this extension of provision for compensation from actual costs, in other words, legal costs, to payments for time, which cannot be assessed so accurately, is perhaps a significant change, but a significant change in a very small field indeed. If between now and Report stage, I think about ways in which assurances can be given on that point, I will be happy to give that consideration.
Lord McCarthy: Can I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, before he sits down, there was a sentence in which he said "a very small field indeed"? There was another sentence a little earlier when he said "quite frequently", so it would be "quite frequently in a very small field". I am not quite certain what that very small field is.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let us engage in textual analysis when we see Hansard. I do not remember saying "quite frequently".
Lord Gladwin of Clee: Forgive me, but the Minister went rather quickly over the issue that I am concerned about. There is already evidence that an employer's representative will use the threat of costs in an intimidatory way. I am not making this up. My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said something about that, and I am hoping it was an assurance. I wonder whether he would repeat what he said because I believe we shall be saved from that situation by the wisdom of the employment tribunals. However, what we will not be saved from is the employer who—and it happens—uses threats against an employee who has gone to a tribunal, in an intimidatory way, to frighten them off pursuing their claim. That is a real issue and I need some guarantees about that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand that point. I am afraid it concerns not what is in this Bill, but the increase in the maximum amount of costs which occurred in July of last year. That is a serious issue which needs to be addressed.
What I said was—and I think this is the relevant part—compensation for case preparation will only apply for the exceptional and abusive cases which we all agree do not properly belong in the employment tribunals. In order that that should be made clear to both applicants and employers, because that is what is

CWH 119
necessary to stop intimidatory messages, I have said that it will be put in guidance for applicants and for respondents.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: This is perhaps one of the most serious debates that your Lordships have had in this Committee.
The Minister, in sticking to the stone brief which Ministers have stuck to throughout the Grand Committee so far, with one very tiny exception for which we are immensely grateful, has advanced an understanding of the clause which is quite extraordinary.
The Minister spoke almost entirely of a recovery of preparation time payments by applicants. He ignored totally what the Law Society says, and I quote it again,
"Although this provision is couched in language that applies equally to both parties, it is likely to impact disproportionately on applicants".
I refer to recovery by respondents of the costs of preparation time, not by any loss they prove—we have seen that—but by some a priori set of rules for how much money the Government think they should be given. That will impact disproportionately on applicants. They will be made to pay extra.
The second point is that we also "provide in regulations". The Minister will forgive me if I quote him wrongly but I understood that he said we also provide in regulations. If the Government know what is in the regulations, let us see them now—they are not going to appear in the Bill. If they will not let us see them, why will they not publish their draft of the regulations tomorrow? They know what is coming, so why not let us see them? They should be in the Bill. Our modest amendment is that the provision should be restricted to cases in which costs might be payable because proceedings on one side or the other were conducted vexatiously, unreasonably or in a misconceived manner. That is so obvious that the Minister must accept it, but he will not include it in the Bill. Instead, he said that the proposal would be limited to the new limit that the Government imposed.
Sometimes there runs through my head in these proceedings a song which that excellent radio station Capital Gold confirmed the other day was sung by Lesley Gore in the 1960s. it is called, "It's my party and I'll cry if I want to". I wonder why the Minister did not refer to the Law Society. Does he suggest that it is wrong and that the provision goes way beyond normal juridical principles?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I find disconcerting the discussion about what the Law Society want. The Law Society contains the very people who are totally covered by the word "costs". The Minister made the point that these payments would relate, as I said earlier, to charities that have to spend a great deal of time defending cases and have lost out badly. However, he also quoted applicants who might have no money of their own. It is a significant point against the Law Society that although it is busy not wanting anyone to have payments, it claims for any case for
CWH 120
which it could claim only under the same circumstances in which that claim could be made, and for every legal fee. I do not need John Grisham to tell me about billing 24 hours a day.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With great respect, it is rather unworthy of the noble Baroness to impute such a state of mind to solicitors generally. I appreciate that she did not like it when in a particular case—the details of which I have no knowledge—a charity seemed to suffer because it had to pay for proceedings. I do not know the circumstances of that case. If the noble Baroness wishes to send me a full account of it, I shall view it. People are hard done by in life and I am trying to stop other people being hard done by. The proposal involves having an arbitrary set of rules imposed on people as to preparation time. In a later amendment, we shall deal with the question of whose preparation time is involved. The noble Baroness must not sweep aside the Law Society's views—they are put forward as the views of the body that represents solicitors in this land. It had adopted a legal view and a view of a practical nature about how the provision will impact. It makes it clear that, for example, the respondent's claim will, in many cases—I hope that the Minister realises that this is what it says—include compensation for the time of several, or many, people. The applicant's claim for costs will be limited, at best, to the value of his or her time. That is a summary of what it says. A very serious matter is involved.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Will the noble Lord tell us why the applicant would be limited to only himself? Would he not have friends or other people?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Baroness should read the clause. It is necessary to read the clause in order to debate it. It states:
"Employment tribunal procedure regulations may include provision for authorising an employment tribunal to order a party to proceedings before it to make a payment to any other party"—
not merely the respondents in the case of an applicant—
"in respect of the time spent by that other party in preparing his case".
In other words, in the case of an applicant by the applicant—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Or any other person.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: It does not say that. The noble Baroness really must not make up a Bill to discuss in Grand Committee as if it says something different from what it does say. The Bill says—and I shall come to this on a later amendment, so perhaps we could discuss it then—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The noble Lord just read out to me that it could be the party or any other party, and he stressed "any other party". My question is: why could not the any other party be someone who was helping the applicant just as much as helping anyone else?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Because the word "party" means party to the proceedings. It is not just a vague word dreamed up by some layman; it is a legal term. If you are a party to the proceedings—the noble Baroness said she does not agree. I would be happy to meet her in a case and be confident of winning in a dispute about the meaning of the clause. Let me read it again.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Read it again.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Baroness says, "Read it again". I hesitate to weary Members of the Committee, but the noble Baroness demands that I read it again. It states,
"to order a party to proceedings before it to make a payment to any other party"—
that means a party to proceedings before it—
"in respect of the time spent by that other party in preparing his case".
That is why the Law Society, in analysing the meaning of the clause, says quite rightly that it will impact disproportionately on applicants. And why it also says that this is something which is quite outside the normal civil proceedings that we know.
Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to complete the point. If the noble Baroness knows of an authority, either in the rules of the Supreme Court or in the county court rules, or in the rules relating to any court or tribunal, no doubt she will cite it to me as the basis on which this proposal could be made.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: When the noble Lord says that the matter concerns only the two parties, I do not understand his argument at all. He is saying that the party on the one side could represent many people working on that case on behalf of that party. I heard him say that and I will read Hansard to check it. Then he went on to say that any other party can mean only the second party to the proceedings. In that case, why does the word "any" appear if it is any other party? If they are both parties to the proceedings, why are there not just simply two parties, the respondent and the applicant?
I cannot understand how he can in one case have brought forward a number of people, all of whom would be claiming this payment, and in the other case saying only one person is concerned. That is the point I am trying to make and I do not understand the distinction he has made.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps the noble Baroness and I are not really in disagreement because the jurisdiction will be—if the noble Baroness could imagine herself as a party to proceedings rather than sitting on the tribunal—to make a payment to any other party. That means either the other party to the proceedings direct, the applicant or respondent, or it could mean a third party who is joined to the
CWH 122
proceedings. There are third-party proceedings which can be initiated in the tribunals, and if the noble Baroness has experience of looking at the cases she will know that there are sometimes many parties joined. That is why it says "any other party". Those are the people to whom the payments can be made.
Now we come to the question: in respect of what? If the noble Baroness will look at line 34— I do not think she has line 34—she will see that it states:
"in respect of the time spent by that other party".
That is either the respondent or applicant, or a third party, or any other party to the proceedings.
"in preparing his case".
That is absolutely clear; there is no problem about that. I know what the clause says and so does the noble Baroness. It is quite unjustifiable to tell me that that should be put on the statute book of the United Kingdom when it means not payment but costs; that it is only intended to operate as costs because this is all part of the campaign to make people pay more, especially, as the Law Society says, disproportionately applicants.
It is all part of the pressure to make people pay more—in this case, not even judged by what somebody else has lost. It is just a payment from some scale of amounts drawn up in the offices of the Department of Trade and Industry which my good friend, the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, has said he suspects of becoming the provisional wing of the CBI. This really will not do. The Government have made a deal with the CBI to put forward preparation time, and say that they will limit it to costs, but regulations limiting it to costs could, with a future Secretary of State next year, be struck out and got rid of.
Nothing can be done in a Grand Committee. One wonders what a Grand Committee is for anyway, with such a controversial Bill. We cannot do anything in a Grand Committee, but we can do something on Report. All I am left with, in regard to Amendments Nos. 73 and 74, is to beg leave to withdraw them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon: May I say something before the noble Baroness talks to Amendment No. 75? My understanding was that in Grand Committee we have the opportunity to stop the proceedings at some time between 7 p.m. and 7.30 p.m., at a convenient time and at a convenient place in the proceedings. I passed a note to the Chairman of Committees some time ago, at a time when I thought it would be suitable to adjourn after Schedule 3 stand part. It would have meant that we would indeed have reached Amendment No. 75. That was what was suggested to me.

CWH 123
The next amendment on the Marshalled List is Amendment No. 75. If we assume that the amendment will take vaguely as long as the all the others have taken, we would be talking about 8 p.m. or 8.15 p.m. My understanding is that that is not normally the procedure in Grand Committee. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, looks somewhat surprised, but I would like some guidance on this. I was told that that was usual in Grand Committee. The noble Lord, the Chief Whip, it shaking his head.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is about timing?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Yes, that is all it is about.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I know that the noble Baroness is saying that we should stop now. The rule for a Grand Committee is that we should stop at a convenient time between 7.30 p.m. and 8 p.m., not between 7 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. What I proposed, and
CWH 124
what happened yesterday, was that we should stop at the conclusion of debate on the amendment which is being debated at 7.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I suggest that we get on with Amendment No. 75 therefore, but I certainly intend to speak to our Chief Whip. This is not my understanding at all.
Lord McCarthy: Is the Minister saying that, in fact, we cannot stop now, because of some rule he has? I think the general wish in the Committee is to stop now. If we go on, many people will go away.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The wish of the Government is to make progress on the Bill and we use rules which have been agreed through the usual channels. However, if it is the general wish of the Committee—and I do not want to take this as a precedent that we should stop now—I beg to move that the proceedings of the Committee should be adjourned until 3.30 p.m. on Monday next.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-three minutes past seven o'clock.

  Golden Jubilee: Civic Honours
  Golden Jubilee: Civic Honours
  Sterling Exchange Rate
  Sterling Exchange Rate
  Government Departments: Entertainment
  Government Departments: Entertainment
  Charities: Dividend Tax Credits
  Charities: Dividend Tax Credits
  Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill: Human Rights Act Statement
  Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill: Human Rights Act Statement
  Turkey: European Court of Human Rights
  Turkey: European Court of Human Rights
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  Europe Day
  Europe Day
  Laeken European Council: Presidential Conclusions and Appendices
  Laeken European Council: Presidential Conclusions and Appendices
  Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
  Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
  Slaughterhouses: Brazil and Thailand
  Slaughterhouses: Brazil and Thailand
  Foot and Mouth: Public Inquiry
  Foot and Mouth: Public Inquiry
  Bushmeat
  Bushmeat
  Hospitality and Tourism: SSC Interest
  Hospitality and Tourism: SSC Interest
  Prisoners: Basic Skills Screening
  Prisoners: Basic Skills Screening
  Secondary Schools: Value Added Pilot
  Secondary Schools: Value Added Pilot
  Historic Ships
  Historic Ships
  Ports of Entry: Security
  Ports of Entry: Security
  Northern Ireland Police Service
  Northern Ireland Police Service
  Republic of Ireland President: Police Escort
  Republic of Ireland President: Police Escort
  House of Lords: Access
  House of Lords: Access