Sitting of 1 May 2002

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

    MERSEY TUNNELS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Wednesday 8 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Castlereagh Police Station
    Rev. Martin Smyth: If he will make a statement on the recent breach of security at Castlereagh police station. [51664]
    Mr. Roy Beggs: What steps have been taken to increase security since the recent burglary at Castlereagh. [51671]
    The Secretary of State, for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): The breach of security at Castlereagh is a matter of grave concern. The police investigation into the incident is ongoing and the House will understand why I cannot go into details while it continues. In parallel to the criminal investigation, I have established a separate review conducted by Sir John Chilcot and reporting to me to investigate all the national security implications. The acting Chief Constable has advised that appropriate immediate measures have been undertaken to increase security and that a detailed security review is ongoing.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement as far as it goes, but does he accept the definition of the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness), who said that the ceasefire is holding because the IRA is not shooting at the police or the Army? In the light of the intelligence and other activities that have been going on, is it not nearly time that the reviews were concluded and action taken to ensure proper democracy in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I keep all the ceasefires under constant review. The acting Chief Constable has made it clear that he does not believe that the IRA ceasefire is under threat. I will, of course, continue to discuss these matters with him.
    932
    As far as the comments of Mr. McGuinness are concerned, it is years since an attack was made by the IRA on the police and security forces. That is a fact. The IRA ceasefire has helped to create the basis of trust on which the agreement was reached, and in a sense is the reason why so much progress has been made. However—and it is a large "however"—the hard fact is that four years after the Belfast agreement, a ceasefire is not enough. I believe that the leadership of republicanism is committed to the process working, but if there is to be confidence that there is wholehearted commitment to exclusively peaceful means, we need to see an end to paramilitary attacks, targeting and any other such preparations. In a sense, we all truly need to have the sense that the war is over.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State fully understand the extent of the horror arising from the breach of security at Castlereagh and the theft of the sensitive materials from that building, which have caused a serious loss of confidence among all law-abiding people in Northern Ireland? How does he intend to restore confidence that those responsible for security in Northern Ireland are competent to protect themselves as well as to provide security for the rest of us?
    Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is precisely one of the reasons why, alongside the police investigation, I have asked Sir John Chilcot to consider some of the wider implications of this breach of national security. Of course, there are wider implications, again because of the allegations that are circulating. I will not comment on any subject on which a judicial process is under way. I merely say this: I want this process to succeed, as do the Government and, I believe, all the parties to it, because we have made so much progress in the past four years on new institutions, democratic structures, human and civil rights and de-escalating the military presence in Northern Ireland. In that context and at this time, after four years, that is precisely why it is not acceptable that either the apparatus of violence or terrorism or the preparations for it can be allowed to continue.
    Mr. John Hume: Given that the Castlereagh security office would be regarded as one of the highest-security offices in Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State agree that it is highly unlikely that members of paramilitary organisations could enter that building without being recognised?
    Dr. Reid: I have to say to my hon. Friend that the nature of Castlereagh changed significantly when it ceased to be a holding centre, not least as a result of representations from his colleagues. If it is possible for paramilitaries to break out of the most secure premises in Northern Ireland—the Maze prison—it is possible for anyone, including paramilitaries, to break in to Castlereagh.
    I shall make no comment on the specifics of the investigation, but there is a possibility that, as in other cases, charges will be brought and evidence given. Time will tell who was responsible for the break-in.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the only major line of inquiry

    933
    that the police are following is an investigation into the role of the Provisional IRA in the break-in? If, after a full investigation, it is discovered that the Provisional IRA was responsible, will the Secretary of State judge that to be such a significant breach of its ceasefire that the IRA-Sinn Fein representatives on the Government of Northern Ireland should be removed? The right hon. Gentleman knows that current legislation allows for a voting system that would not exclude them. Is he prepared to change the law to exclude Sinn Fein-IRA if they have breached their ceasefire? Or is he unprepared to change it even if the Law Lords rule against him in a case that will come before them soon? Is he prepared to change it, as his spokesman recently suggested, only to keep Sinn Fein in government?
    Dr. Reid: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on his first point. The investigation to which he referred is not the only major line of inquiry. It is the major line of inquiry, but there are no closed minds when considering evidence. I see the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends laughing. I am afraid that I examine the facts before I make decisions.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to a court case. Without prejudice to the wisdom that their Lordships will bring to bear on it, I simply remind him that, on decisions, I beat him the first and second times. I am confident that we will beat his appeal for the third time.
    Helen Jackson: Is not the lesson of Castlereagh that the trust between the communities in Northern Ireland is fragile? In that context, is it not important to hold a full and detailed investigation into exactly who was responsible for the break-in and why it happened? Is it not also important for all paramilitary groups to move away from violence for the foreseeable future and make that clear not only in words but in deeds?
    Dr. Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend. On trust, there is so much at stake and so much to lose that I cannot believe that those on any side who have contributed so much in the past would put the process at risk. I am talking not only about republicans, because everyone has a responsibility to build confidence. Northern Ireland has recently been scarred by a considerable spate of loyalist violence. Apart from being wrong in itself, it gives a spurious justification to those on the other side of the community who wish to retain arms and the apparatus of violence.
    We all have a responsibility. However, those who share in government have a special responsibility: they must be free of the taint of any association with the apparatus or the activity of paramilitaries. All of us must not only be committed, as I believe the republican leadership is, to the peace process and to exclusively democratic means, but be seen to be committed to those means.
    Lembit Öpik: Details of the hit list appeared in the press before individuals on it had been informed of their inclusion. What can we do to ensure that such a breach does not happen again?
    Dr. Reid: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman suggests that malicious leaking of information may have occurred. In the face of the evidence, I am not in a
    934
    position to deny that. There may be people in all organisations and parties who wish to see the process fail. After all, all organisations are made up of human beings. Some people may be throwing snowballs at the process. However, the real problem is that someone else may be making the snowballs. As long as people make the snowballs, the underlying reality is that others will be able to use them. I therefore appeal to everyone, notwithstanding the nature of some of the leaks and the way in which reports are exaggerated and misinformed, to ensure that we get rid of that underlying reality, which allows those who want to damage the process to do that.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: But what happens when the snowballs melt? Will the pebbles inside them be revealed? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, when the Chilcot inquiry is finished—while we would not want the names of persons to be revealed, for obvious reasons—its principal conclusions will be brought immediately to the House so that we can form an opinion on what has happened in this case? We need to know why someone was able to walk into Castlereagh, go into the most secure office there, obtain these documents and walk away, leaving behind a variety of different smokescreens. Is it not of particular significance that the person who was arrested as a result of the investigations was arrested on the strength of evidence relating to other issues, rather than to anything that was taken from Castlereagh?
    Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I resist the temptation to pursue the snowball metaphor further. On his first point, it is important to distinguish between the police investigation, which is attempting to apprehend those who carried out the crime—a proper and appropriate matter for the police—and the wider review of national security implications that I have asked Sir John Chilcot to undertake. When Sir John reports to me, I will consider how much of that information we can put into the public domain. His report will not necessarily name names in terms of the guilty people who have committed the crime—that was a false assumption by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—
    Mr. McNamara: I asked you not to.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Dr. Reid: That is properly the role of the police in this case. I will look at the report to see how much of it I can put into the public domain without further damaging national security.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: I hope that the Secretary of State will not disagree with me when I say that the whole peace process is now on trial in a new and very worrisome way as a result of the facts that have emerged over the past two weeks. First, we have heard the suggestions that the IRA is behind the Castlereagh break-in. The murder of a taxi driver in Dungannon has been attributed to the IRA, and there have been authoritative reports that Sinn Fein-IRA continue to target activity against individuals and physical objectives. We know that the IRA has been buying arms in Florida since the ceasefire and since the Belfast agreement, and there are now suggestions that it has been buying arms

    935
    even more recently in Russia. Perhaps most dramatically of all, the US House of Representatives produced a detailed report last week which made it absolutely clear that Sinn Fein-IRA—and it is Sinn Fein-IRA—are at the heart of an international network of drug-running and terrorist organisations.
    In the light of all that, I shall put a question to the Secretary of State to which I hope he will give a precise and straightforward answer. Is it his view that the level of IRA activity revealed over the last two weeks in these cases is consistent or not consistent with its obligations under the Belfast agreement, with the ceasefire, and with the detailed criteria set out by the Prime Minister in his speech at Balmoral on 14 May 1998 for evaluating those obligations?
    Dr. Reid rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, I must remind the House that we are still on Question 1. I am keen to move on to the next question.
    Dr. Reid: In almost every case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, judicial processes are under way. He knows that. I am not, therefore, prepared to comment on what he calls reports, on suggestions, on innuendo or on speculation. In all those cases, the facts will come into the public domain, and that will be the time to take them into account.
    If the hon. Gentleman is asking me, as a generality, not about the ceasefire, on which the acting Chief Constable has made his position known, but about whether a ceasefire is a necessary and sufficient condition to maintain confidence in the process, I have already said that I do not believe that to be so. Any activity involving the intention or preparation of violence inhibits confidence in the process. That is a serious question, and I take it seriously. I have tried to make my own serious judgment on that issue public to the House today.
    Mr. Davies: I shall put another question in the hope that I get a straight answer to this one. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the present circumstances it would be completely wrong to make new concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA beyond those in the Belfast agreement, such as allowing former terrorists to join district police partnerships, and giving an amnesty to on-the-run terrorists? Does he agree that those ideas, on which he has hummed and hawed for several months, should be definitely excluded?
    Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman omitted to mention that former terrorists can become Ministers in Northern Ireland. I thought that he supported that. I am surprised at the gusto with which he is prepared to oppose their being on a local policing board while accepting them in the Government of Northern Ireland.

    Decommissioning
    2. Mr. Peter Duncan: If he will make a statement on decommissioning. [51668]]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): The second act of IRA decommissioning,
    936
    reported on by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning on 8 April 2002, needs to be part of a process that involves all paramilitary groups. Paramilitary groups must end all forms of terrorist activity and dismantle the apparatus of terrorism.
    Mr. Duncan: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. I welcome the recent decommissioning, but what reassurance can he give to the House and to the wider community in the United Kingdom that decommissioning remains a positive process? In particular, can he reassure us that, in his opinion, more arms are being decommissioned than are currently being purchased?
    Dr. Reid: I think that even the most sceptical Member of the House would accept that the first and second acts of decommissioning were historic in their own terms, given the problems we face. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether we have a huge way to go on this issue, as on all others connected with the Belfast agreement, the answer is yes.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: As long as there is a large quantity of arms in Northern Ireland that are available to paramilitaries to use, people will live in fear. That includes people who have been placed in exile, such as Joseph McCloskey, whom I recently took to see the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As America has had some impact on the two acts of decommissioning that have so far taken place, might it not be a good idea for Joseph McCloskey also to visit the Administration in Washington? He might receive as good a reception as he did from my hon. Friend.
    Dr. Reid: Yes. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Under-Secretary recently met Mr. McCloskey and his family. He gave them an assurance that, when reviewing the position of victims, the Maranatha community, with which he was also associated, will be fully involved.
    Mr. David Trimble: Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the confidence generated by the welcome second act of decommissioning has now been totally dissipated by the flurry of paramilitary activity, of which Castlereagh is merely a part? Although I appreciate what the Secretary of State has in mind, does he not think that it is a little mealy mouthed to say that we all need to have a sense that the war is over? Would it not be much better to say to the IRA and to all the other paramilitary organisations that it is long past time they said clearly that the war is over, and moreover that eight years after the first ceasefire it is about time they started to disband?
    Dr. Reid: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions and what I said are mutually exclusive. In a tactical sense, my reading of history suggests that the one way to ensure that something does not happen is for a British Secretary of State to demand that it does. Having said that, the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's comments is true. If there is to be sustained confidence in this whole process, people need to be assured and have the perception that there has been not only cessation of firing—which has been the case for years, and is a major step forward—but cessation of the preparation for firing at some future stage. That, I think, is the kernel of the

    937
    present lack of confidence. We must all take account of it, including the leaders of the republican community. I believe they are committed to the process, but they must understand that the question of cessation is beginning to have a serious effect on people's confidence in that process.
    Mike Gapes: What progress is being made in persuading loyalist paramilitaries that they too must decommission?
    Dr. Reid: We are making every effort to ensure that loyalist groups are encouraged to proceed to a ceasefire and engage with the international commission, as some have been doing. Some are not currently on ceasefire, although we keep that under review as well. At the beginning of the year there was a significant reduction in indiscriminate terrorist violence in the cause of loyalism.
    My hon. Friend is right, however: not only is such action wrong and destabilising, and not only has it no role in a modern Northern Ireland, but it provides those on the other side of the community with a spurious justification for hanging on to their arms and continuing their preparations for violent activity.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State has helpfully distinguished between the Chief Constable's judgments about the IRA ceasefire and the question of other paramilitary activities, including targeting. Tomorrow, the Prime Minister will go to Northern Ireland. Is the Secretary of State saying that, in terms of the criteria laid down by the Prime Minister at the Balmoral showground on 14 May 1998, the IRA ceasefire no longer holds?
    Dr. Reid: I have already made it plain that although I keep all these ceasefires under constant review, I rely on the counsel of, among others, my security advisers. The acting Chief Constable has made his view public over the last week, but the important point, which I have already made, is completely in line with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Balmoral some years ago. He said then that, if the process was to continue and if people's confidence was to be retained, a ceasefire was not sufficient; the preparations and apparatus for terrorism must be run down. If that was true some years ago, it is even more true today. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is to go to Northern Ireland in partnership with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will reinforce that message.

    Police Service
    3. Mr. Michael Connarty: What progress is being made in recruitment and training for the new Northern Ireland police service. [51669]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): The first intake of new recruits graduated on 5 April, and the second graduation ceremony will take place on 10 May, involving a further 60 graduates. By next week, some 300 recruits appointed on a 50:50 basis will have started training. Although figures are not yet available for the latest campaign, the response is understood to be, again, encouraging.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. At least I was listening; not many other people were.
    It was, in fact, a very mellow reply, given that Sinn Fein is clearly running a campaign in Northern Ireland to discourage members of the nationalist community from applying to join the police force. Will my hon. Friend convey to the people of Northern Ireland the message that if Sinn Fein wants to be regarded as any part of the peace process and of the approach towards a civilised society, it must encourage the rule of law? That means stepping aside and letting members of the nationalist community choose to join the police, rather than trying to interfere and stop the development of an objective cross-community police force which is necessary for the achievement of the civilised society we want to see in Northern Ireland.
    Jane Kennedy: I entirely agree. The response from the Catholic community has been unprecedented; if anything is holding back the process of change, it is Sinn Fein's refusal to endorse the new arrangements, and its campaign to dissuade Catholics from joining the police.
    Intimidation from any quarter is utterly unacceptable. We believe that, in the light of the enormous changes that have been made and of cross-party and international support for those changes, the onus is squarely on Sinn Fein to encourage nationalists and republicans to join the police.
    Mr. Gregory Campbell: Given this morning's partisan statement on police recruitment by the policing oversight commissioner, when will the Government begin a recruitment procedure in Northern Ireland that does not discriminate against the Protestant community?
    Jane Kennedy: We are entirely confident that the 50:50 recruitment procedure that is in place is meeting the needs of the new Police Service of Northern Ireland. In fact, this morning's publication of the oversight commissioner's report is very welcome. He rightly pays tribute to the work of the Policing Board and the progress of the recruitment programme. It is a report on work in progress, and we will look very closely at the conclusions that he has drawn.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [51697] John Robertson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the economy of Scotland, particularly that of the central belt, is buoyant, and I thank him for that. Can he

    939
    assure me that the UK-wide aviation review will be based on fair and open competition, and that any public funding decisions will take into account the effect on local economies? Will he also ensure that airport costs are the same throughout the country, and can he assure me that the links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, which are vital to Scotland's growth, will be started and completed quickly?
    The Prime Minister: The aviation White Paper that will be published shortly will set out the options and deal with many of the issues raised by my hon. Friend. As for the rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, I think that a clear understanding exists that there is a lot to recommend both projects. We are urgently looking at the matter with not just the British Airports Authority, but the Scottish Executive and the Strategic Rail Authority, and I hope that we will have some news to announce shortly. I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter, and I am sure that, given the buoyancy of the economy in Scotland, those projects could add to it.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: In the past week, the Government have announced a new target for violent crime by September, the docking of child benefit from truants, putting police into schools, and giving London 700 more police. Given that the local elections are—strangely—tomorrow, does the Prime Minister feel that it is any wonder that the public are cynical about such gimmicks?
    The Prime Minister: It is not merely that we have announced more police officers for London; we have actually provided more. It is not merely that we have announced the measures on youth crime to which the right hon. Gentleman refers; they are part of a continuing series of measures to deal with every single aspect of youth crime. We know that overall crime has fallen in the past five years, but we have a serious problem with street crime and antisocial behaviour. Of course, the difference is that we are trying to deal with this issue, but the Conservatives have opposed every single one of the measures that we are proposing.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: All four were gimmicks announced in the past week. The reality is that the Prime Minister has announced extra police officers seven times in five years. Even today, he announces that police numbers are at their highest level, but they have only just reached the level that he inherited when he took office in 1997. As many people are leaving the Met as are joining it. Because of the Government's red tape, the force now needs 12 police officers just to spare one to go on street patrol. Will the Prime Minister confirm that today's gimmicky announcement amounts at best to no more than—in fact, just under—two extra beat officers per London borough?
    The Prime Minister: First, we have actually got the highest ever level of police officers. That is the result of investment that the Conservatives opposed. Since we are talking about comparative records, the Conservatives promised in 1992 that there would be 5,000 more police officers. In fact, they cut the number of police officers in that time. We have increased the numbers to a record level.
    940
    It is not only the Government who are taking action on street crime. The police are also taking action and the Metropolitan police safer streets initiative is already having an impact on reducing street crime. The difference is that we are sitting down with the police and others in our criminal justice system, working out each and every measure that we need to take to tackle the problems, and the right hon. Gentleman opposes them. He is even opposing the community safety officers that could be out there on the street, helping the police in their work.
    What is more, the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party are also opposing the measures to confiscate the assets of drug dealers and others involved in organised crime. Some Opposition Members look a bit puzzled by that—they should know what their Front Benchers have been up to. If he is serious about crime, let him support us on community safety officers and on the Proceeds of Crime Bill, now going through the House.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It is typical of the Prime Minister, when faced with a requirement for more police officers on the streets, to want to put part-time officers on the streets, not real ones. Just now he said that the Government were succeeding in bringing down violent crime. I remind him that violent crime has risen by 20 per cent. in the last three years. Nobody believes a word he is saying.
    Let us get back to one of the gimmicks that the Prime Minister announced this week—taking child benefit away from the parents of truants. The Deputy Prime Minister rubbished it on Sunday and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions rubbished it on Monday. So whose idea was it, and when will it be introduced?
    The Prime Minister: First, on the crime figures that the right hon. Gentleman has just given—over the last five years crime has fallen, not risen: it doubled under the Conservatives. However, we have accepted that street crime is a real issue. What I said to him was that recently, as a result of the operation by the Metropolitan police, the figures have been going in the right direction. We need to continue that and make sure that it happens in each of the 10 main crime hotspots.
    In relation to child benefit, or any other benefit, we are examining proposals for dealing with antisocial behaviour. We will look at every measure necessary to bear down on the problem of truancy, antisocial behaviour and juvenile offending. If the Conservatives wish to oppose those measures, let them do so. It will show only how completely out of touch they are with the British public.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: No one believes a word that the Prime Minister says. Out there, the public know that violent street crime is rising, but he will not even admit that. He pretends that it is falling. It has gone up by more than 20 per cent. The reality is that all the detection and clear-up rates in London have halved since he took power. When will he understand that the public do not want gimmicks: they want crime to be stopped?
    The Prime Minister: I have accepted that street crime is a problem. I continually say that when the right hon. Gentleman asks me, because it is true. The question is: what can we do? We are taking action on truancy, action

    941
    to ensure that people who are paid benefit take some responsibility in return, action to ensure that persistent offenders are not bailed and back out on the street again and action to provide more police officers because we know that street crime is a problem. The difference is that the Government are taking action to do something about it but he is opposed to that action.
    Mr. John Hume: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he has received the largest amount of correspondence from individuals on one subject that any Prime Minister has ever received, given that more than 1 million cards have been received from citizens across Ireland expressing their deep concern about the safety of the Sellafield nuclear plant? Is he prepared to take the necessary steps to remove those concerns?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the concern that has been expressed. However, the Sellafield plant and any other plants in this country are subject to the strictest national and international standards. Those standards are regularly reviewed. The plants are regularly inspected and none of those inspections has ever found a problem, such as the problem alleged in the press and by other political parties. Of course we take the concerns seriously, but there is a proper procedure and it would be wrong to close down nuclear facilities or start putting large numbers of people out of work without sufficient evidence from the relevant bodies to back it up.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister say which members of the Cabinet support his plan to withdraw child benefit from the parents of persistent offenders?
    The Prime Minister: As I just said to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), when we have a firm proposal, we will put it forward for consideration. However, as I said, we are examining the matter. What is more—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman wants to oppose the measure, let him oppose it. We are not examining the proposal only in relation to child benefit. We are also looking at housing benefit, and the persistent antisocial behaviour and offending by families in receipt of that benefit. The vast majority of people in this country will support the idea that people who get benefits from the state owe some responsibility in return. If the Liberal Democrats are opposed to that, let them say so.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister seems keen to encourage opposition, but I was merely inquiring about his level of support. Will not this idea go the same way as the half-baked notion that youngsters on a Saturday night should be taken along the street to the nearest cash machine to pay their dues to society? Would not it be better to bury this idea here and now, once and for all?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree at all. The right hon. Gentleman may not realise it but fixed-penalty notices are now law. They will start to be issued in July, as will drug treatment testing orders, and the right hon. Gentleman must also bear in mind the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders, parenting orders and reparation orders. We will take whatever measures are necessary to crack down on the problem.
    942
    I can tell the right hon. Gentleman and other Liberal Democrat Members that every Labour Member knows that problems of antisocial behaviour and juvenile crime must be tackled, and we will take the measures necessary. Given that 80 per cent. of the children who play truant are out on the street with an adult, I believe that most people realise that it is time we made sure that parents took responsibility for the behaviour of their children.
    Mr. John Lyons: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have seen press coverage over the weekend of British citizens held in jail in Saudi Arabia. They include one of my constituents, Mr. Alexander Mitchell. The prosecutor in that case has asked for lengthy jail sentences for some, and the death penalty for Mr. Mitchell. I know that some contact has been made with the Saudi authorities and the Saudi royal family. Will my right hon. Friend not only sustain that contact and the pressure, but step up the pressure immediately and treat the case as a matter of urgency?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concerns about the case of Sandy Mitchell. I realise that this is a very difficult time for Mr. Mitchell and, of course, for his family. I appreciate also the measured way in which my hon. Friend has put his question. We are indeed in constant contact with the Saudi authorities. I believe that it is understood by the family—and I know that it is by my hon. Friend—that the best way to approach the matter is not in a public manner but to act behind the scenes so that we can ensure that we do the very best for Mr. Mitchell in these circumstances. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do so. As I said a moment or two ago, we have contact with the Saudi authorities at every level. We will maintain it, and ensure that we do everything that we possibly can to assist Mr. Mitchell and his family.
    Richard Younger-Ross: Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister was asked:
    "Will there be a debate on a motion in the House before there is any conflict in Iraq?"
    The Prime Minister responded that
    "we will ensure that the House is properly consulted."—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 574.]
    Will the Prime Minister clarify that answer? Will he assure the House that a debate will take place on a substantive motion before he commits British service men and service women to any further attacks on Iraq? Yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave before. I simply say that since 11 September, for example, there has been the fullest debate and consultation with the House, and I am sure that that will continue to be the case. However, let me point out that we have not yet taken action in Iraq.
    Richard Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that upholding the principles of justice and the rule of law is as important internationally as it is at home? As the United Nations has decided that it should investigate the serious allegations that war

    943
    crimes may have been committed in Jenin, is it tolerable that Israel, as the accused party, should seek a veto over what is investigated, who investigates it and the result of that investigation in advance? If it is not acceptable, is it not time for the international community to say what it is prepared to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: I very much hope that the UN mission to find out the facts in respect of what happened in Jenin can go ahead. We are in discussion with the Israeli Government, as are the United Nations, the United States Government and others. I know that those negotiations are at a difficult and delicate stage, and I do not want to say more than that I hope very much that the mission goes ahead. As my hon. Friend may know, we too are working very hard to alter the position that currently obtains at Ramallah, where Chairman Arafat is. I do not want to say more about that at this stage, but I think that the proposed fact-finding mission, headed by the UN, with a responsible delegation, would be right not only for the international community but for Israel. I hope that the obstacles in the way of that mission can be removed.
    Mr. David Cameron: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating West Oxfordshire district council, whose council tax rate of £40 is one of the lowest in the country? Is he aware that this Conservative-controlled council is investing in recreation centres, social housing and doorstep recycling? Does it not show that we can have quality local services without fleecing taxpayers?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, but if we look at the 10 top council taxes that are levied in the country, five of them are levied by Conservative councils and none by Labour.
    Paul Goggins: One of the areas in which the Government have made a real difference in their first five years has been on debt relief and international development. With a few weeks to go to the G8 summit, will the Prime Minister tell the House what progress he is making in building political and financial support within the international community for the New Partnership for Africa's Development?
    The Prime Minister: It is one of the Government's proudest achievements to have increased significantly overseas aid and development and also, in moves that have been pioneered by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development, to remove the very high burdens of debt from the most highly indebted countries. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus attention on the partnership for Africa that we hope will be agreed at the G8 summit in Canada in June. That will mean that in return for Africa taking the measures necessary on governance, corruption and conflict resolution, there should be better terms of trade, aid and help given to those African countries. Given that a child dies every three seconds in Africa as a result of conflict, famine or disease, it is high time that the
    944
    international community faced up to its responsibilities for Africa and, in partnership with African countries, offered some hope for the future.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister recall his Deputy saying just days after the 1997 election—[HON. MEMBERS: "We won!"] This is what he said:
    "I will have failed if in five years time there are not … far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order but I urge you to hold me to it".
    Has the Prime Minister held him to it?
    The Prime Minister: It is correct that traffic on the roads has increased. It has also increased, incidentally, on rail and the underground. In part, of course, that is because of the 1.25 million extra jobs in the economy. We have had very high levels of economic growth, as opposed to the recessions that we had under the Conservatives.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Now we know that a promise is only a promise if it is not made by the Deputy Prime Minister—no one ever holds him to it. As the Prime Minister knows, punctuality and reliability on the railways have got worse—that is why people are going back on the roads. Delays on the underground have doubled—that is why people are going back on the roads. The Deputy Prime Minister was the Minister responsible for the whole five years. Now we have a new Transport Secretary and he has completely failed to put any of that right. After five years, is not it always the same with the Government? No one takes responsibility, no one apologises and no one resigns.
    The Prime Minister: As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman a moment or two ago, the numbers of people on rail and underground have risen, not fallen, under this Government. In respect of the rail industry, yes, there are tremendous problems—in part because of a botched privatisation supported by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.
    If the right hon. Gentleman is asking what we take responsibility for, I shall tell him: the strongest economy for decades, with the lowest inflation and interest rates; the lowest unemployment in the western world; 1.25 million extra jobs; the best primary school results the country has ever seen; more teachers; more nurses; and record sustained investment in the national health service. In addition, there is the minimum wage, banning handguns, banning land mines, extra money for aid and development, and constitutional reform. Yes, there is a lot that we can take responsibility for and be proud of.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Does my right hon. Friend share people's concern about the future of the justice system, where those who engage in serious street crime, burglaries and drugs do not get custodial sentences, yet people who find lost property can end up with a custodial sentence? Will my right hon. Friend look into that to see what we can do to ensure that the justice system in this land is fair and efficient?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly look into the point that my hon. Friend made at the end of his question. He is right to draw attention to the very serious problem

    945
    of people being bailed and back on the street again when they have a serious record of criminal offences and are then charged with another criminal offence—especially when it involves people with a known drug addiction who have previously committed criminal offences. That is precisely why we are tightening up the law in those areas. As I have already said, I will look into the point made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. James Paice: Contrary to what the Prime Minister said a few minutes ago, the issue is not one of civilians supporting the police, but of giving civilians police powers. If he wants community support officers to be able to detain people for up to 30 minutes, but not to arrest them, what does he imagine will happen when a gang of young thugs does not want to be detained? Would not it be far better to ensure that proper police powers are given only to people who are fully trained, properly paid and fully qualified, rather than introducing a system that smacks of policing on the cheap?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's point would have some validity were we decreasing the number of police officers: we are not—we are increasing them. Conservative Members are completely wrong in their opposition to community safety officers. For example, in constituencies where such support officers currently work informally with the police they have been immensely successful at reassuring the public and also in having a deterrent effect on local crime. Of course, it is the case that we need more police officers. We are providing more police officers and they have the appropriate powers, but I think it wholly wrong of the Conservative party to oppose the idea that, as well as police officers with the full range of powers, we have community safety officers who can act in support and give a real sense of security to local communities. Like many other measures that we have introduced, I am sure that, once they are actually introduced, the Conservatives will say that they supported them all along.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the current international situation—especially the priorities of Afghanistan, the middle east and Africa—it is vital that the World Service receives adequate funding to continue broadcasting in languages such as Pushtu, Persian and Urdu? Will my right hon. Friend, with the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary, look favourably during the comprehensive spending review at the World Service's bid for further moneys from the Foreign Office grant to continue broadcasting in those languages?
    The Prime Minister: First, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the World Service, which does a magnificent job. I saw for myself, in the interviews that I did with Pushtun radio for Afghanistan, how hugely important it was in getting a message through to ordinary people in that country. Obviously, the spending review is being conducted during the next few months. I shall take that as a very bold and good early bid, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been listening.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Bearing in mind today's Select Committee findings on the individual
    946
    learning accounts that the Government failed to take early advice and failed to heed the warnings of the potential for abuse, does the Prime Minister agree with the Select Committee's findings that there is at least a moral case to pay compensation to training providers who acted in good faith, but whose schemes were terminated by the abrupt ending of the scheme?
    The Prime Minister: It had to be terminated for reasons that I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands, but we have just received the report. We will consider it carefully before making detailed determinations on it; but, of course, we will study very carefully the conclusions of the Committee.
    David Hamilton: I believe that I am now living in possibly the most dangerous time that I can ever recall in my lifetime, and I was at school during the Cuban crisis. I believe that the problems in the middle east are of such a nature that we are living in a tinderbox. I refer to the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). At what point does the Prime Minister feel that it would be appropriate to take action against Israel, which is committing atrocities against the Palestinians?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said before—not today, but when answering questions on this in previous Question Times—the most important thing for us to do is to try to resolve the situation. I know that there are very strong feelings, understandably, about what has happened in Jenin and elsewhere. Of course it is always important that we say also that there are tremendously strong feelings in Israel about the terrorist acts that have meant the loss of so many innocent civilians in Israel, too.
    I regard our best role as working with the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and others to try to resolve this. That is why the most important thing in the immediate term is to deal particularly with the situation at Ramallah, which is very serious indeed, and at the Nativity Church in Bethlehem. We are working very hard to try to give both sides a way out of the immediate impasse and then, in the longer term, we have to restart the political process. It is not a lack of concern that means that we are not out there every day with statements that Israel should do this, or that the Palestinians should do that.
    We really believe that the best way to be influential and effective in this situation is to work with the parties to get something done. We can all condemn what is happening and, for understandable reasons, people take very strong positions on it, but the main thing is to get the situation resolved because I agree with my hon. Friend totally that this situation is very dangerous, not just for the middle east, but for the wider world.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Will the Prime Minister comment on his Chancellor's biggest change in personal taxation, which was to put a duty on pension funds through the changes in advance corporation tax, which means that pension funds are £5 billion a year worse off than before? Does he realise that that is a major contributor to the closure of final salary schemes, which means that millions of people in their 30s and 40s will no longer be able to look forward to a retirement with

    947
    independence and security? Will he apologise to those people, or is it part of the Government's policy to put people on means-tested benefits?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that, and I do not accept that that measure has the consequences that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I would also point out that, of course, we have massively cut corporation tax for businesses. In addition, it is extremely important that we have now altered the situation that we inherited five years ago, when we were paying out so much in interest payments on the national debt that it exceeded all the money that we spent on the school system. It was therefore important to ensure that we brought that debt under control. That has made for a more stable economy, more and better financing and a situation where the stock market has risen. All those things help pension funds, rather than not. So I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not accept the premise of his question. In particular,
    948
    I do not accept that we were wrong to take that measure; it was necessary both in its own terms and to sort out the problems of the economy that we inherited from the previous Government.
    Sandra Osborne: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is aware that I have nagged him and his Ministers relentlessly about the need for a new Scottish air traffic control centre. Will he therefore accept my welcome for today's announcement that, in future, Prestwick will control almost 70 per cent. of all UK air traffic? Does he agree that this should confound the critics who said that the centre would never come about, and does he accept that it illustrates the advantage for Scotland in its partnership within the UK?
    The Prime Minister: We promised the modernised Prestwick centre, and we promised that to my hon. Friend's constituents. Like so many other things, it has been delivered.

ROYAL ASSENT
3.31 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Football Disorder (Amendment) Act 2002

Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002

National Heritage Act 2002

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002

Greenham and Crookham Commons Act 2002

Speaker's Statement
3.32 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have carefully considered the important matters raised on Monday by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) concerning evidence obtained for the Lockerbie trial. I must inform him that acts by prosecuting authorities in Scotland are devolved matters for which no Minister in the House bears responsibility. I am sure, however, that those responsible will have noted the matters that he raised in his point of order.
The Table Office will, of course, offer any assistance to the hon. Gentleman about any international aspects of the Lockerbie case which may fall within the responsibility of United Kingdom Ministers.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I thank you and your advisers for the care that you have given to this complex matter? Is not part of the difficulty the imprecisions that were not addressed on the passage of the Scotland Act 1998? Is there not an important matter of principle, however? When there is a long report from Dr. Hans Koechler, who was appointed by Kofi Annan for the United Nations, should not the subject of that report—the conduct of the trial—also be a matter for the House of Commons? After all, United Nations matters are surely matters for Westminster and not for the Mound.
Mr. Speaker: I have nothing to add to my statement.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a constituent, Dr. Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the dreadful Lockerbie incident, and who feels very concerned about these matters. Could you advise me on how I can best represent his interests, as I am a Member of this Parliament but not of the Scottish Parliament? Could you give Members such as me advice on that?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady will note that I said in the last paragraph of my statement that the Table Office will give any assistance that it can on this matter.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are there not constitutional implications affecting the position of the House of Lords as the supreme court in this country? Would you be prepared to reflect on that point and speak to the House again?
Mr. Speaker: This matter was the subject of a criminal trial and there would be no appeal to the House of Lords on that.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the points that have been made, led by the Father of the House, may I register the fact that I am the constituency Member representing Mrs. Ann Mann, whose brother, his wife and their two children—the whole family—were killed in that dreadful disaster? By your ruling, there is now a serious issue as to whether I have the powers of representation—

951
as the constituency Member in the national Parliament of the United Kingdom—that I would expect on behalf of any constituent in the privilege of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker: We all feel for the relatives of the Lockerbie victims and our hearts go out to them. The hon. Gentleman can continue to represent Mrs. Mann. The Table Office and any Officer of the House will seek to give as much assistance as possible to help the relatives of Lockerbie victims who live in any Member's constituency.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, and to the point raised by the Father of the House. My constituent, Martin Cadman, lost his beloved son on that flight and he is very concerned by Dr. Hans Koechler's report. Mr. Cadman is anxious for me to initiate an Adjournment debate in the House. If I apply for an Adjournment debate, will it be in order, given your earlier ruling?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should apply for the Adjournment debate. He will not get the debate unless he asks for it. If his Adjournment debate is against the rules of the House, I will not be able to grant it. However, if it is within the rules of the House, he stands a good chance of securing it.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a separate and much simpler point of order, Mr. Speaker. A week ago, I tabled 14 questions to the Home Office about specific matters relating to immigration. Two of the questions were subsequently transferred to the Lord Chancellor's
952
Department, and I have no quarrel with that. I asked the questions specifically for a named day—yesterday—and I gave the Home Office six working days to answer the questions when I could have given it just three.
Twelve of the answers came back to me last night, and all of them contained the words, "I will reply as soon as possible." I have spoken to the Home Office and I have let it know that I believe that to be wholly unsatisfactory. The Home Office has apologised for the lack of answers, but I raise this point of order because answering parliamentary questions is not a voluntary option for Departments or Ministers. A named day is specified so that Members receive replies on that day. Will you, Mr. Speaker, be good enough to say, at the very least, that it is your wish that Ministers answer parliamentary questions on the day they are due?
Mr. Speaker: I am very keen that all Back Benchers should receive proper replies that are delivered in decent time. I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will look into his complaint and I will reply to him.
Mr. John Taylor: Further to the point of order raised by the Father of the House, Mr. Speaker. Are we, in effect, being told that there are functions of the Crown in this country that we cannot refer to a responsible Minister in this national Parliament?
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scotland Act 1998 went through the House and there are devolved matters. I refer him to the last paragraph of my statement. On any question or matter that he wishes to raise, he is entitled to seek the assistance of Officers of the House.

Port Protection Authority
3.39 pm
Mr. Roger Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Port Protection Authority to exercise those powers and responsibilities now exercised by port health authorities, trading standards authorities and HM Customs and Excise; to monitor the legality, quality and integrity of imported goods and to collect any duties upon them; and to report annually to Parliament on its effectiveness in carrying out its duties.
The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen import controls at sea ports and airports by simplifying the structures and making the lines of accountability more transparent. There is much public concern about the control of imports into the United Kingdom. Large quantities of drugs, tobacco, alcohol and meat are smuggled into Britain each year. The current system of import control is complex and involves a number of different agencies, including Customs and Excise, which is responsible to the Treasury, trading standards departments, which are a local authority function, and port health authorities, which are local authorities in their own right.
The arrangements have evolved for historic reasons and do not meet the challenges of modern trading practices. Port health authorities, for instance, were originally established to keep out human diseases such as plague and cholera, but are now mainly responsible for food imports of animal origin. There are no port health authorities at our airports and they operate in only some sea ports. Local authorities take over those duties in the authority's absence. For instance, three different local authorities are involved at Heathrow airport because the various warehouses and buildings are situated in different authority areas. The Food Standards Agency is responsible for imports of food stuffs of non-animal origin, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is responsible for meat and food stuffs of animal origin.
All those bodies have different powers of enforcement and function. The complexity is immense. Naturally, Customs and Excise is mainly concerned with the collection of import duties and discovering illegal drugs. Other illegal imports are of a lower priority, yet Customs and Excise is the authority with the greatest power to stop, search and detain goods.
The volume of contraband entering the country poses a real threat to the health and wealth of the people of Britain. Evasion of duty on tobacco and alcohol puts at risk the viability of our pubs and shops. At the same time, the Treasury is losing millions in revenue each year. Illegal food imports can have very damaging effects on human and animal health. I am not criticising the people in those agencies who are battling to stem the tide of illegal imports, but current structures mean that although some responsibilities overlap, there is a lack of coverage in other areas. There is also the problem of agencies sharing intelligence in the fast moving world of imports and exports.
There is reason to believe that the number of personnel involved in this work has been reduced. What is needed is a simpler structure with sufficient resources to collect more of the duty that is being lost and to prevent the importation of diseases such as foot and mouth into this country, which cost our taxpayers more than £4 billion.
954
Owing to the time constraints, I shall concentrate on illegal meat and food imports. They raise three serious concerns and consequences: first, the danger to human health; secondly, the danger to the health of domestic and wild animals; and, thirdly, the possible effect on endangered species as a result of the importation of bush meat and wildlife. The potential for damage to human health is enormous—damage from a number of exotic viral diseases such as Ebola, simian immune deficiency virus, monkey pox and the Nipah virus, all of which are possibly transmitted from animals and meat to human beings. Other more common pathogens, such as E.coli and salmonella, could be present in imported meat, particularly chicken, and even on some salad crops.
Many non-European Union countries have production systems that involve animal welfare standards, antibiotics, other drugs and insecticides that are not allowed in this country. Some of the residues are harmful to human health. Even EU countries have been found exporting food to us that contains specified risk material, such as spinal cord in beef carcases that could be infected with the BSE prion, which in turn could go on to cause new variant CJD in humans. All those risks are substantial and need to be monitored. Some meat is imported illegally, with forged documentation and false health stamps, while other consignments are hidden in non-food containers or containers of fruit or vegetables.
I turn now to animal health risks. Although it cannot be claimed for certain, it is highly likely that foot and mouth disease entered this country through some type of imported food. It is only one example of how this country suffers during an epidemic, and it shows how vulnerable we are to such diseases. Foot and mouth is only one such disease; there are many others, including classical swine fever and sheep pox.
There are many theories about how such diseases could enter the country. One idea is that they may enter in waste food from airports and ships, but there is already a requirement to destroy such waste rather than feeding it to pigs as swill, and since foot and mouth the feeding of swill to pigs has been made illegal. Many suspect that diseases are introduced by individuals bringing food into the country, and I shall refer to bush meat imports in a moment. At present, it is legal for an individual to bring in 1 kg of cooked meat in an hermetically sealed container. Many travellers do not understand the law and bring in much more than that, and sometimes the law is deliberately flouted.
Most countries have far stricter regulations on individual travellers than we do, and they undertake far more stringent surveillance. People entering those countries have to sign a declaration and deposit any food in waste containers. Britain has a far more lax approach, and lacks the resources to implement the regulations that we do have.
Bush meat imports are definitely on the increase, with an estimated 1,000 tonnes of illegally imported meat entering the UK each year. Bush meat gives rise to all three problems that I have identified. It is a threat to human health; it is a threat to animal health; and it is a threat to vulnerable species in danger of extinction, including species of monkey, leopard, antelope, porcupine, and chimpanzee and the great apes. Bush meat is subject to no health standards in its country of origin, and it is very often brought into the UK by couriers in domestic luggage without any refrigeration or consideration for hygiene. The effects on

955
the animal population and on human health are potentially devastating. I may mention here the campaign against bush meat and live imports by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner).
More and more goods, including meat and other food, are being traded across the world. Britain imports 50 per cent. of its food. It is the duty and responsibility of our Government to protect our people from disease and inferior quality products. The present complex arrangement is failing to achieve an acceptable level of protection. A new single-purpose authority, adequately resourced, would not only raise additional sources of revenue but protect this country from the worst threats of disease. It would not curtail trading, which is so important to us, but would increase the confidence of consumers and customers, so trade would be enhanced.
I welcome the recent Government action plan on meat imports, but there remains the problem of which body or bodies will enforce it. The only sensible solution is to set up a single body to take responsibility for activities in air and sea ports. It should report annually on its effectiveness to a combined Select Committee representing all those with an interest in the body.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger Williams, Lembit Opik, Mr. David Heath, Matthew Green, Albert Owen, Mr. Simon Thomas, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Colin Breed and Mr. Alan Reid.

Port Protection Authority
  PORT PROTECTION AUTHORITY
  Mr. Roger Williams accordingly presented a Bill to establish a Port Protection Authority to exercise those powers and responsibilities now exercised by port health authorities, trading standards authorities and HM Customs and Excise; to monitor the legality, quality and integrity of imported goods and to collect any duties upon them; and to report annually to Parliament on its effectiveness in carrying out its duties: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 132].

  ENTERPRISE BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 2)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
  That the Order of 10th April (Enterprise Bill (Programme)) be amended by the substitution in paragraph 3 (Proceedings in Standing Committee) of the words 'Thursday 16th May' for the words 'Tuesday 14th May'.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  Question agreed to.

Ways and Means

  NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS
  3.49 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): I beg to move,
  That provision may be made for, and in connection with, increasing national insurance contributions and for applying the increases towards the cost of the National Health Service.
  There is a simple reason to support the motion: to secure high-quality public services and an NHS comprehensively available and free at the point of need. The motion paves the way for the Bill that will introduce changes to the national insurance legislation. It is right that the House should have the opportunity to debate it prior to the Bill.
  David Taylor: Given the great emphasis placed on the proposed national insurance changes by the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, is my right hon. Friend surprised by his absence? Perhaps it is symptomatic of the shambles that is Her Majesty's Opposition these days.
  Mr. Smith: That is a matter for the Opposition. I can only conclude that the shadow Chancellor did not relish debating the issues yet again this afternoon. I shall have more to say later about his record and that of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  We are continuing the principle established in the 1940s of raising resources towards the cost of the national health service through national insurance contributions. The Bill will allocate those resources to a modern health service, building on the Beveridge principles to provide a system of comprehensive care on which we can all rely and of which we can all be proud. An NHS free to all at the point of need has been the subject of a consensus that has endured for the past 50 years. It is the fairest and most efficient way of funding health care and it was, until the last general election, the policy of the Conservative party.
  I remind Conservative Members of the promise that they made at the last election. The shadow Chancellor stated at the time:
  "There will be no charges. Do not believe the lies which are being spread by our opponents. Conservatives will retain a free and comprehensive national health service."
  That is what they said then, but they refuse to give that commitment now. While the Conservative party is abandoning its promise and commitment to the NHS, we are delivering on ours.
  Together with far-reaching reform, the extra resources that we are providing will deliver a health service worthy of a consensus of support for the years to come. I believe that the British people will draw a sharp contrast between the clarity, purpose and energy of our proposals, and the vacuous, evasive and world-weary cynicism of the shadow Chancellor and the Conservative Opposition, saying in public that they do not know what their policy is, while saying in private that charges—the shadow Health Secretary's self-pay system—are the way forward.
  In contrast, the Government believe that national insurance contributions are the fairest way of raising additional resources for the NHS. Using national

  957
  insurance will ensure that people contribute according to their ability to pay. It will also ensure that vulnerable groups on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, will be protected, and that incentives to save will be unaffected.
  Mr. John Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I should like to impart to him a piece of information. The proposed national insurance contributions will increase by £900,000 per annum the take from Solihull council alone as an employer, quite apart from the cost to its employees or all the other employers and employees in Solihull. In other words, there will be many, many millions of pounds annually of extra money from my constituency. I will do a deal with the Minister. If he will give us a 24-hour accident and emergency facility at Solihull hospital, he can keep the change.
  Mr. Smith: I take it from those comments that the hon. Gentleman means that, having talked to his constituents in Solihull, he will support us if the extra money goes into the national health service and raises standards as we propose. Were he to do so—[Interruption.] Either he wants the money for Solihull hospital or he does not.
  Mr. Taylor: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to spend the money not in the ways that he proposes, but in the ways that I propose.
  Mr. Smith: We will spend the money in the way in which the patients and public of Solihull need it to be spent. Commitments and reforms are being introduced that will deliver higher standards, shorter waiting times and more nurses and doctors—the very things that I am sure his constituents want.
  Mr. Taylor: I accept that remark in the spirit in which it was made, and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what the people of Solihull want: 24-hour accident and emergency facilities at Solihull hospital. That is what they want and what they have told me to tell him.
  Mr. Smith: And I am sure that they want a national health service that is comprehensively available and free at the point of need. That is the commitment that this party and this Government are making, but which Conservative Front Benchers refuse to make. The hon. Gentleman might like to take that message back to the people of Solihull and indeed to reflect on it himself.
  To increase resources, employees and the self-employed will pay an extra 1 per cent. of all their earnings above £89 a week, so someone on the median income of £410 a week will pay £3.70, and those on higher incomes will pay more, while those on lower incomes will pay less. Indeed, half of families with children will pay less overall because of the introduction of the child tax credit and the working tax credit. As employers have a strong interest in having a healthy work force, they will make an equivalent additional contribution. It was the Confederation of British Industry that estimated that workplace absence cost British business more than £10 billion in 1999. I am sure that many employers would regard investment in their employees' health and welfare as not only a social obligation, but an economic necessity.
  958
  The extra money that we are investing must secure extra results, so my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has already announced vital new reforms, including new financial incentives for hospital performance, greater freedoms for high-performing hospitals and trusts, powers and resources that are devolved to front-line staff and primary care trusts, reform of social services care for the elderly and a series of measures increasing choice for patients. For the first time in the history of the NHS, there will be independent audit, inspection and scrutiny of patient complaints with a duty to account and report to the public on money spent and standards achieved. In future, an annual report to Parliament will be prepared by the new independent auditor, accounting for the money allocated to the NHS, where it has been spent and the results of the expenditure.
  There will be a new system of financial incentives for NHS organisations. Hospitals that can treat more patients will earn more money. Traditional incentives have worked in the opposite direction; indeed, the poorest performers have often received most financial help. We will therefore introduce a new system for money to flow around the health service, ending perverse incentives and paying hospitals by results. The incentive will be to treat more NHS patients more quickly and to higher standards.
  Patient choice will drive that system. Starting with those who have the most serious clinical conditions, patients will have a greater choice about when and where they are treated. From this summer, patients who have been waiting six months for a heart operation will be able to choose a hospital that has the capacity to offer quicker treatment.
  So on the basis of reform and modernisation, we have announced the largest ever increase in investment in the NHS, raising United Kingdom NHS spending on average by 7.4 per cent. in real terms each year—an annual cash rise of 10 per cent. not just for three years, but for five years.
  Mr. Steve Webb: The Chief Secretary said that the fairest way to fund the extra money for the health service was through national insurance. Does he accept that some of the richest people in the land live not on earned income but on dividends and investment income, and that they will not pay a penny towards the increase to help the health service? Would not it therefore have been fairer to use income tax?
  Mr. Smith: No, we do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman must accept that if we raised the money primarily through income tax, many pensioners on fixed incomes would have to pay more, and it would deter saving. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman mutters about affluent pensioners from a sedentary position. I remind him that many moderately affluent pensioners are on fixed incomes and watch every penny of their expenditure. Any Government would need to consider carefully before raising the money through them.
  Mr. Webb: The Chief Secretary is generous to give way again. He may have misheard my sedentary comment. The Government repeatedly tell us that two thirds of pensioners do not pay any tax. We therefore

  959
  exempt all pensioners, rich and poor alike, but we put a levy on some low earners and exclude the filthy rich who live off dividends and investments.
  Mr. Smith: We reformed the national insurance system to take out the lowest earners. As I have already explained, the combination of the working tax credit and the child tax credit means that half of families with children will not pay extra in overall terms, even allowing for national insurance contributions.
  As a consequence of what we are doing, and yearly increases in investment, UK health spending will grow from £65.4 billion this year to £105.6 billion in 2007–08. Even after inflation, that is a 43 per cent. increase over five years. That is a real-terms doubling of health service investment since 1997. United Kingdom health spending will therefore rise from 6.7 per cent. of national income in 1997 and 7.7 per cent. of national income this year to 9.4 per cent. by 2007–08.
  Let me give some examples of what the new investment will mean. It will deliver 35,000 more nurses, 15,000 more doctors, 40 new hospitals and 500 primary care centres, which will all provide better care and quicker treatment times. We will realise our commitment on the national health service and make clear the choice about our public services. The debates on the Budget and the Finance Bill show that the dividing line is not only between those who support raising national insurance and those who do not, but between those who support a national health service that is comprehensively available and free at the point of need and those who would abandon it.
  The country faces a clear choice between a high-quality national health service that fulfils the needs of the British people and that is funded through general taxation, and a system whereby families are forced to take out private insurance and have to pay more for treatment through charges. We choose the NHS, the Opposition choose charges. We are providing record new investment, combined with reform, to deliver results as we reaffirm the basic principle of the national health service: health care should be available on the basis of need, not ability to pay.
  To vote for the motion is to back the NHS, which the British people want and deserve. I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Speaker: I inform hon. Members that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the nationalist parties.
  4.4 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: The Government's aim in tabling the motion and introducing the national insurance contributions Bill, whenever it eventually makes its way to the House for a belated Second Reading, is to perpetuate the two great myths about the Chancellor's recent Budget.
  The first is that the Budget is almost solely about increasing expenditure on the national health service. The second is that raising taxes in the manner proposed in this motion will be sufficient to bring about the kind of improvement in the quality of health care that all of us want—whatever our political party.
  960
  The Conservatives believe that both those Government claims are misleading. The first claim—that rises in national insurance contributions are all about funding the NHS and nothing else—was blown out of the water by the research carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). Drawing on figures prepared by the House of Commons Library, he pointed out that the Government plan to increase their spending on the NHS by a smaller amount than the increase planned for the expenditure on benefits and tax credits.
  That leads me to a number of more detailed points about the motion, which I hope the Chief Secretary or the Paymaster General will respond to if time permits at the end of this debate. The motion will allow for provision to be made for increasing national insurance contributions, and for applying those increases towards the costs of the national health service. Does that mean that the Government are proposing that all revenue from those increases in contributions will be applied exclusively to health expenditure? If not, what proportion of the revenue from those increases will be so applied?
  This is an important point, because the Government have got themselves into a tangle over their own arguments. If all the revenue that will flow from the proposed increases in national insurance contributions in 2003–04 were spent on the NHS, that sum would, according to our calculations, be greater than the planned rise in NHS spending, much of which was funded anyway. Surely the Chancellor also said in his Budget statement that the income from freezing personal allowances was supposed to go towards helping the NHS and not towards other Government expenditure. We would be grateful for further elucidation on those points.
  The truth is that we are faced with this motion today because the Government are trying to pretend that they are not putting up taxes on income when, in fact, they are, and that all the extra money is intended for the NHS when it is not.
  The second myth about the Budget is that, by implementing this motion and the Bill that will follow it, the Government will finally be able to bring about the improvements in health care that Ministers have promised us repeatedly over the past five years but have so far failed to deliver. In his opening speech, the Chief Secretary said—as we have heard other Ministers say over those five years—that additional expenditure has been provided and that there will be important new health service reforms to ensure that that money is properly spent.
  In a recent statement, the Secretary of State for Health made what Conservative Members might regard as one or two encouraging noises. There was talk about the money following the patient, and the Chief Secretary is now talking about patient choice receiving greater priority. Indeed, one might suggest that the Ministers should christen these reforms "the internal market", were it not for the fact that that would cause too much embarrassment on the Benches behind them.
  We are sceptical, partly because we have heard all this so many times before, and partly because the ministerial language about greater freedom of choice, more flexibility, and decentralisation contrasts starkly with the experience of the health service in our constituencies. When I went to talk to my local primary care trust just a few days ago, I was told that it had been given clear

  961
  instructions by the NHS top management that it must give priority to meeting the Government's acute hospital waiting list targets, rather than any other targets that the PCT might wish to set to reflect its own judgment of what was best for the health of the people in its area, or any other targets specified by the Department of Health as those that PCTs were created to implement.
  John Mann: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Last week, the chair of my primary care trust said that, as a result of the Chancellor's previous Budgets, there were already well-advanced plans for three new health centres in Harworth, Worksop and Warsop in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman can look at my website to get the details. Is he mistaken in his view? Never mind the increases announced in the current Budget, the Chancellor was able to fund increases from money provided in previous Budgets.
  Mr. Lidington: I can only contrast the hon. Gentleman's experience with that in my part of the world, where the primary care trust, far from talking about improvements in health care, is, sadly, having to discuss reductions in health care. It cannot replace district nurses or speech therapists because of the debt that it inherited from its predecessor organisations.
  The point that I was trying to make was that there needs to be much greater decentralisation and devolution of power to take decisions in the national health service. I am sceptical about whether that is what we will get from the Government. Our scepticism derives partly from seeing the record of how the money that the Government have allocated to health expenditure in recent years has been spent.
  In the financial year 2000–01, no less than £629 million of the money that was allocated by the Government for the national health service was never spent. According to the report published this week by the Select Committee on the Treasury, the Government have been extremely slow in producing measures to ensure that money allocated is effectively spent, and that necessary reforms to the management of those resources are introduced. Paragraph 39 of the report was agreed unanimously by members of the Committee from all parties without any division during the deliberative sitting. The Committee concluded:
  "On the issue of underspending, and of the matching of money to reforms, promised by the Chancellor … it remains far from clear what sanctions are proposed and how they might be implemented."
  I believe that, without change, we will not see the difference to the quality of health care that all hon. Members want.
  John Mann: My hospital has a new accident and emergency unit, which was created in the past two years. Has not the hon. Gentleman's hospital also had one?
  Mr. Lidington: The straightforward answer is no. If the hon. Gentleman looks back at the history of the health service under 18 years of Conservative government and five years of Labour government, he will find that there are examples under both Administrations of particular units being redeveloped and new facilities provided. At the moment, the Government—certainly in the form of the
  962
  Labour party chairman—have admitted that performance in public services is patchy and in some cases has been getting worse. There is a vast gap between the improvement that people expect, and believed that the Government had promised them, and the standards being delivered.
  The Government would have us believe that the answer is simply to enable large amounts of public money, raised through additional taxation, to be spent on the health service, without the thorough reform that is necessary. To spot the problems with that we need only look at Scotland and Wales, where spending is much higher than in England but the service is worse in some important respects, and becoming worse still.
  Of course our constituents want more to be spent on health care, and so does my party. I want to make that clear beyond question to the Chief Secretary. People also want the United Kingdom's health service to match and, if possible, surpass the highest standards that patients can find in other developed countries. Again, so do we. The Government are in danger of underestimating the extent to which members of the public now assess, with increasing interest, the service available in some European countries in particular, and ask why treatments and waiting times provided by our partners in Europe are better, in certain key respects, than those in the national health service. They want to know why we cannot learn lessons from the experience of our neighbours.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Perhaps the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers are employed by Conservative central office. Opinion polls have shown that 70 per cent. of the nation warmly welcomes the Government's commitment to funding the health service publicly. How can he say that the general public view is that the service should not be funded in the way that we propose?
  Mr. Lidington: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman maintains such a closed mind on the subject. The same opinion polls show that the public do not believe that the measures announced by the Government will deliver the improvements in health care that they want. Polls also show increased readiness to look at experience elsewhere, especially since some patients from south-east England in particular have begun to experience treatment in European hospitals as a consequence of measures introduced recently by Ministers.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: While on the subject of open minds, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could open his mind a little and share his thinking with us; otherwise, when the public judge these matters they will conclude that he and his party are in an intellectually and politically bankrupt position. The Conservatives say that they recognise the need for extra money for the health service and that they respect certain of its principles, but they will not say how much they would put in and where they would get it from. Will he give the public an idea of how much extra money he is talking about, and where he would find it?
  Mr. Lidington: The right hon. Gentleman protests too much. He has heard what our position is from my right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor, and from other Conservative Members.
  Mr. Smith: What is it?
  Mr. Lidington: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are committed to giving the people of this country a

  963
  health service of world standard to which everyone will have access, and that we believe that top-quality health care should be available to the British people irrespective of their ability to pay. He is right that we have not yet produced a finished, costed policy proposal, but I remind him that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was elected Leader of the Opposition roughly seven months ago, he instituted a thorough policy review including, naturally, a review of our policy on health care.
  The public would expect of a party such as mine, which suffered a right clobbering in two successive general elections, a period of careful and thorough reflection on its policies.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick rose—
  Mr. Lidington: They would expect Conservatives to examine the experience of other countries, and to offer clear and costed proposals when we have completed that period of analysis. That is what we shall do—and well before the next general election.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Yesterday's Financial Times states:
  "The Conservatives have put back plans to unveil policy announcements on health for at least another year, believing voters still have too much faith in the government's ability to turn round the National Health Service."
  Is that true?
  Mr. Lidington: No. The timing of our announcement will he determined by our satisfying ourselves that we have the right policy mix to provide the top-quality service that people expect and are entitled to, and by our working out how that service should be financed and what it will cost. We can then put forward detailed proposals that will stand up to the rigorous debate and scrutiny that we will be happy to submit them to.
  Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lidington: No, I shall not give way again now. I have given a clear explanation of where we stand on this matter.
  The way to secure the improvement that people want is to learn from the experience of others. We should not, as the Government would have us do, close our minds to lessons from abroad on how we could modernise and improve the quality of health care.
  Matthew Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman does not want closed minds, he is presumably aware that a large range of systems exists throughout Europe: from the Danish system that, although a little more decentralised than ours, is similar in most respects, to the French system, in which people pay to see their doctor. As he suggests, all European systems deliver quicker treatment for patients and shorter waiting times. However, that can surely be attributed not to the existence of many different funding systems—including systems such as ours—but to the fact that every single other country has more doctors per head of population.
  Mr. Lidington: I have already told the House that we accept the need for additional resources for health care.
  964
  We must get right the amount of money that goes into health care, but we also need a much greater degree of decentralisation and devolution of decision-making powers than exists under the current system. The record shows, however, that we are not going to get that from the current team of Ministers. We further need to decide on a way of funding the health service that will lever in resources in the quantity achieved by the European countries to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is unsure about how to reform funding, but he agrees that we need more doctors. He and his party agree that we need to put more money into social services, so that we can pay for care for elderly people in residential and nursing homes and in their own homes, thereby freeing up hospital beds. Why, therefore, should we wait to implement those measures until his party has come up with an alternative that it has yet to think of? Why not act now and spend the money on social services, and on the provision of the extra doctors whom he agrees are needed?
  Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is ignoring the fact that the Government were elected five years ago, and again last year, on a programme of promised improvements to the health service. We believe that reforms are needed to deliver those promised improvements in quality. The Government have not come forward with the necessary proposals for reform, and on those grounds we do not believe they have justified the tax increases that they propose today. I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman has been left alone in the Chamber today by his colleagues and I wish that he had been able to persuade more of them to attend.
  We intend to hold the Government to their word, both on the reforms that they have promised but failed to deliver to the health service and on employees' contributions to national insurance. The Chancellor, in his evidence to the Treasury Committee in December last year, said that he had made a pledge not to raise income tax because the Government "wanted to reward work". He said that that was
  "an essential part of the Government's strategy in encouraging and reinvigorating the work ethic."
  It would be hard to devise any measure better calculated to blow a hole in that strategy than an increase in taxation that hits only those people who are in work. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, the increase in contributions and the removal of the ceiling
  "delivers a tax increase which is very, very close to being identical to an increase of 1 per cent. in the 10 per cent., 22 per cent. and 40 per cent. rates of Income Tax."
  Other groups at work will be hit disproportionately hard. We have about 100,000 older women and widows on low pay who rely on their husbands' pension provision through the national insurance system and pay only 3.85 per cent. rather than the standard 10 per cent. rate. A 1 per cent. increase in the rate payable by those mostly older women, many of whom are now approaching retirement, means an effective rise of a quarter in the contribution that they pay to the Treasury.
  Mr. Hendrick: It is strange that the Liberal Democrats are criticising us for not putting a penny on income tax while the Conservatives are accusing us of doing precisely

  965
  that. What is the reason for the difference between the two Opposition parties? I would have thought that opposition is opposition.
  Mr. Lidington: One thing I have learned in my time is not to attempt to claim responsibility for what happens on the Liberal Democrat Benches. We also intend to hold the Government to account on what they have said on the national insurance ceiling. The present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in May last year:
  "We've got no plans at all to raise that ceiling on national insurance contributions … It is not going to happen."
  However, the Chancellor and his team still cling to the pretence that the ceiling remains in place. As the Chancellor said when delivering his Budget:
  "Save for this 1 per cent. contribution, the ceiling … remains in place".—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 591.]
  Mr. Tom Harris: I wonder what position the hon. Gentleman held in the Conservative party in 1979, when Sir Geoffrey Howe promised the country that his party would not double the rate of VAT, but subsequently did so when it got into office. I also wonder what position he held when John Major, the former Prime Minister, promised not to extend VAT but then did so after the 1992 general election.
  Mr. Lidington: On the first point, I was a student at the time. There is little point in going back and looking at what happened 20 and more years ago. I do not recall members of the Labour party praising Conservative Ministers for being ready to change their minds on those measures. Instead of going into the pros and cons of the Budgets of 1979 and 1992, we should remember that the key point, in the wake of the 2001 general election result, is that we agree that the quality of public services should take priority in the framing of policy for the future of this country, but we believe that the Government's approach will not deliver that quality. The Government's proposal will hit individuals and companies very hard through the imposition of tax increases.
  How can the ceiling remain in place when people are paying national insurance contributions on income above that level? The Treasury Select Committee was surely right to conclude earlier this week that Government rhetoric on the matter was mere sophistry. That is a pretty damning indictment of the arguments employed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by others on his team.
  However, I noticed that the Chief Secretary did not speak at all in his opening comments about the nature of the powers that the Government intend to assume. The Treasury Select Committee has rightly asked that the national insurance contributions Bill be framed in such a way that further primary legislation would still be needed before the rate of charge above the upper earnings limit could be increased. I hope that Ministers will make it clear later in the debate whether that will be the case. It would be wrong for the Government to include in the Bill an enabling power that allowed them to rush through further breaches of the national insurance contributions ceiling without adequate debate and scrutiny.
  If the Paymaster General is unable to give that pledge when she winds up the debate tonight, that will only reinforce the widespread and growing suspicion that the
  966
  Budget is only the first step towards the Government's objective of scrapping the upper limit altogether. People and companies must have real doubts about the Government's intentions, given the increasing scepticism expressed by many independent observers, as well as Opposition Members of Parliament, about the reliability of the Government's forecasts for economic growth. Such doubts were expressed most recently in a study published by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
  The Chief Secretary did not refer either to the position of self-employed people. The Government have rightly talked a great deal about the need to encourage enterprise and competitiveness in this country, but the proposed increase in national contributions for self-employed people will act as a disincentive to enterprise, and will discourage it. Even allowing for the offsetting effects of tax deductibility, the proposals mean that a self-employed person with an annual income of about £20,000 a year could expect to pay an extra £143 a year, that one on £30,000 a year could expect to pay £232 more, and that one on £40,000 could pay £868 a year in additional national insurance contributions.
  However, we intend to hold the Government to their word on employers' national insurance contributions. The proposals have rightly been dubbed a straightforward tax on jobs. The Labour party's business manifesto last year stated:
  "United Kingdom business taxation levels, including employers' social security contributions and corporation tax, are competitive with the rest of the European Union. This is a situation we intend to maintain."
  The motion breaks that pledge too.
  All over the country, businesses and trade organisations are reckoning up the risks that the motion poses to their competitiveness and future success. Representatives of the glass industry told me only this morning that the increase in employers' national insurance contributions will give rise to an extra bill for them of around £1.5 million each year.
  John Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lidington: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman twice already.
  This week, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry said that businesses around the country are accusing the Government of
  "talking an enterprise game … and yet on a major thing—something that overshadows it all—they are actually going backwards."
  Even before this Budget, the CBI's figures showed that the business tax burden is higher in only one of our major trading partners than it is in the United Kingdom.
  If business has to pay out more on national insurance, it will have less money to spend on other things. If business has to pay out more on national insurance, it will have less to invest. It is no wonder that the Item Club concludes that
  "the Budget levies will further depress business investment".
  The CBI fears possible cuts in capital spending, training, research and development. Business leaders are surely right when they say that pension contributions could also be hit.
  Mr. Tom Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Members on both sides of the House

  967
  know how important it is for manufacturing industry in particular to invest. The fact is that with interest rates half what they were under the Conservatives, companies are finding it much easier to find the capital to invest now than they did then.
  Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman needs to listen to what businesses have been saying in the past week about the Budget. They have been scathing—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) shout, "Whingeing." That will be a very interesting indicator to business and business organisations of the true attitude towards them of too many Labour Members.
  What is shocking about the Government's approach is that they appear to have made no assessment of the effect of the increase in contributions upon jobs. I have read the compliance cost assessment that the Inland Revenue published today in respect of the Bill, which has yet to be published. I was disappointed that the compliance cost assessment made no attempt to analyse the impact of a higher rate of employers' contributions on jobs. The rise in employers' contributions is nothing other than a direct tax on jobs.
  Mr. Webb: As for whether employers' national insurance is a tax on jobs, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was a ceiling on employees' but not employers' contributions, but that it was abolished in 1985. I will leave him to recall who did that. Does he think that that was a mistake and that it was a tax on jobs?
  Mr. Lidington: The record shows that if all the changes to basic rate income tax and national insurance during the 18 years of Conservative government are taken together, the marginal tax rate was still significantly lower when we left office than it was in 1978 to 1979. I wish that Ministers would understand that as the director general of the CBI said recently:
  "It might just be the straw that breaks the camel's hack in a boardroom decision on whether to get rid of people."
  Oxford Economic Forecasting, an independent body, reportedly estimates a potential cut in jobs growth of up to 100,000 over the next three years, depending on how great a cut in annual pay increases workers are willing to accept. The Government may have a more optimistic assessment of the impact on jobs of this increase in contributions than does Oxford Economic Forecasting. They owe it to the House, to business and to the wider public to make a clear statement and to place their analysis in the public domain so that their assumptions and figures can be judged against those made available in estimates by outside organisations. However, I fear that no such assessment has been carried out, for when asked by the Select Committee whether he had carried out any impact assessment of the increase in employer national insurance contributions, the Chancellor replied, quite simply, no.
  We are being asked to vote through a motion without any assessment having been made of its impact on employment. This comes from the same Chancellor and Treasury team who two years ago claimed that the lower national insurance contributions that accompanied the climate change levy
  "will act to promote employment opportunities."
  We have a Government who think that lower national insurance contributions help to create jobs, but who refuse to acknowledge the damaging effect on jobs of higher
  968
  national insurance contributions. Nor have they analysed the additional problems that these tax increases will cause to the very public services that Ministers say they want to help.
  The Local Government Association reckons that the cost to local government of the rise in employers' contributions will be £300 million a year. That is equivalent to an increase of about £17 in the average band D council tax.
  The national health service faces an increase in its payroll tax of about £250 million. We have it on the authority of none other than the Prime Minister's official spokesman that the total bill for the public sector is expected to be about £1.2 billion.
  What about individual public service workers? Nurses, police officers, teachers and firefighters will all get hit, too. The place worst hit will be London, where the cost of living is higher and average wages, too, are higher. This tax rise might have been designed to clobber Londoners.
  What will happen to those public servants? An operational fire station officer on £30,600 a year will pay about £289 more a year in national insurance. A police sergeant earning £33,400 will pay about £308 more a year in his national insurance contributions. I cannot see how that will do anything other than worsen the already desperate problems in recruitment and retention of key public service workers in London and elsewhere in the south-east of England.
  All those workers, and many like them in both the public and private sectors, have been let down by the Government. Everyone relying on public services has been let down, too. The Labour party has no answers on how to improve the national health service. The Budget was a final and desperate throw of the dice. Business, taxpayers and, above all, the patients who actually use our health service will pay the price of the closed minds of the Labour party and Labour Ministers.
  A Government who have talked long about enterprise have introduced a measure that is damaging to enterprise. A Government who said that there would be no tax rises are bringing in tax rises. A Government who promised no more money unless there was reform in the public services are now promising money but have failed to deliver the reforms. It is time to hold the Government to their word. That is why we shall vote against the motion.
  4.42 pm
  Denzil Davies: I shall speak briefly on the resolution, which, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the House, is a paving measure for the legislative framework to increase national insurance contributions in order to raise much-needed extra investment for the national health service.
  None of us is so naive as to believe that money alone can solve the problems of the national health service. Structures must be reformed and there must certainly be a cull of many aspects of bureaucracy. None the less, without extra investment there will be no hope of solving the problems and of recreating a world-class national health service.
  The last time that I spoke in the House when the Government of the day were seeking to raise national insurance contributions to benefit the public sector was

  969
  25 years ago. I am sorry to say that that was in 1977. I had the invidious task of winding up a debate on something called the national insurance surcharge.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench may be interested to know that, at that time, unfortunate Ministers were unable to obtain any real briefing from the civil service, because the Department of Social Security said that the surcharge was a tax but the Inland Revenue said that it was not. Ministers were able to overcome those problems, however. I am sure that they no longer exist and I certainly do not want to engage in the sterile—almost metaphysical—argument as to whether national insurance is a tax.
  Many hon. Members may remember, although they were not here at the time, that the surcharge was a direct and immediate consequence of the Rooker-Wise amendment. That amendment was forced through the Committee that considered the Finance Bill in 1997 by two Labour Back Benchers: Lord Rooker, as he is now—he is also a Minister of the Crown—and Mrs. Audrey Wise, who is sadly deceased.
  Although it was said at the time that perhaps the voices that enunciated that amendment were clearly those of Rooker and Wise, the hand behind it all was said to be that of Mr. Nigel Lawson. I do not know whether that is correct, but the Rooker-Wise amendment was agreed to in Committee at about 3 o'clock in the morning, when the then Labour Government had a majority of two. Of course, the two Members who went across to the other side at that occasion were Rooker and Wise.
  The amendment was about indexation, and it enabled personal allowances to be indexed at a time of very high inflation. Unfortunately, as a result of what happened in the early hours of that morning, the possible loss to the Labour Government was about £3 billion. A very distinguished economist, Mr. Nicholas Kaldor—or Lord Kaldor, as he became—was the special adviser to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. In those days, special advisers were special. He was very special indeed; he came up with the splendid invention of the national insurance surcharge—presumably not very different from an increase in national insurance contributions.
  However, times have changed—the wheel is turning full circle, and the Chancellor announced in his speech, as has been mentioned, his decision that for the next year at least personal allowances will not be indexed. Indexing came in 25 years ago and I do not know whether it is going out now, but with very low inflation there may be an argument for not indexing personal allowances. With next year's non-indexation, another £700 million will be available, according to the Red Book, for public expenditure and the national health service, but I merely mention the fact that all the funding for the NHS will not come from this ways and means resolution or from non-indexation; funding will also come from borrowing.
  Just as indexation is on the way out, the old public sector borrowing requirement is coming back. Most hon. Members have perhaps never heard of it; its name has changed over the years, but I will still call it the public sector borrowing requirement. Looking at table 2.7 on page 33 of the Red Book, I see that it has another name—it is called a treaty deficit. That is all right; what is in a name?
  970
  I notice, en passant, that the treaty deficit column is headed "treaty commitments". I will not develop that point, but I take it that that is uncharacteristically sloppy drafting by the Treasury because, of course, the figures listed are not treaty commitments. They will not be treaty commitments until we sign up to the dreaded growth and stability pact under the Maastricht treaty. Leaving that to one side, the PSBR is now called the treaty deficit.
  I see from table 2.7 that, taking the first full year, the treaty deficit—the PSBR in my language—will be 1.1 per cent. of gross domestic product next year. The following year, it will be 1.1 per cent. of GDP. In the year after that—let us take a three-year period—it will be 1.4 per cent. of GDP.
  Now, let us take GDP as shown in table C3 on page 211 of the Red Book. In fact, that table shows the GDP that the Treasury uses for the public expenditure assumptions. My mathematics may not be terribly good, but we come up with a figure of about £12 billion next year and about £12 billion the following year. The sum then jumps, because of the 1.4 per cent. figure, to about £17 billion in the third year. That is about £42 billion worth of PSBR—treaty deficit—within three years.
  To return to the Chancellor's Budget statement, he said:
  "The monetary and fiscal figures that I am publishing today—
  he said it with some flourish—
  "also show that we are well within the Maastricht criteria for the euro".—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 580.]
  Of course, that is right. Those who were here at the time, and who debated the provisions ad nauseam, know that the Maastricht criteria for the euro require a rate of 3 per cent. The world has moved on since the Maastricht criteria, however, because we now have an absurdly named growth and stability pact—or is it now the stability and growth pact? I think that the name is changed every year depending on how the European economy goes. The growth and stability pact is a fearsome pact because it says that we cannot borrow at all—or virtually not at all—at this stage of the economic cycle. That is one of the problems faced by Germany with its 2.7 per cent. of GDP borrowing, which it must eliminate by 2004—it does not matter whether Herr Stoiber or Chancellor Schröder wins the election, or what the German people want to vote for.
  I was not surprised to note that the Chancellor did not refer to the growth and stability pact in his Budget statement. Despite some heroic attempts at reinterpretation, interpretation and analysis of the growth and stability pact by the Chancellor—who has done his best—we are not within the growth and stability pact on the basis of the figures to which I referred. On those figures, if we were part of the euro, we would have to find £42 billion over three years.
  Mr. Hendrick: Would my right hon. Friend accept that, although we are not within the euro, this country is subject to treaty provisions for the multilateral surveyance of budgets, as are Sweden and Denmark? Would he also accept that it makes sense, when a country has such a low ratio of debt to GDP as Britain has, that countries should be able to borrow for investment in times of declining growth?
  Denzil Davies: I do not want to prolong this debate, but, first, surveyance is different from being forced to do something. Secondly, although there may be various

  971
  interpretations of this treaty, there must be almost balance at this stage of the economic cycle, and we do not have it. I merely hope that we will not find ourselves, some time in the future, with another hole in the public sector finances, for which we have to find £42 billion. I would not wish my right hon. and hon. Friends to have to introduce another national insurance surcharge to cover that hole, which some of us had to try to cover years ago.
  In 1977, the motion was carried—no doubt because of the brilliance of the Minister replying to the debate—by a majority of two. It was said that those two happened to have been Mr. Brian Walden and Mr. John Mackintosh, who were very distinguished Members of the House at the time. They did not always find their way into the Aye Lobby, but, thankfully, they saved the illustrious career of the Minister winding up—they found the Aye Lobby at around 11 o'clock at night and registered their votes. I understand that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General is winding up tonight, and I think that she will secure a better majority than two. I trust, hope and believe that she will have a slightly gentler winding up than her counterpart 25 years ago.
  4.54 pm
  Matthew Taylor: Although we have some criticisms of what the Government have done—I shall come on to them—it is our intention to support the resolution for two fundamental reasons. The Conservative party should consider both reasons.
  The first fundamental reason is that we do not want to stand in the way of the investment that will improve the health service, attract the doctors and nurses that it needs and free up beds for the elderly by funding improvements in local authority spend so that people can leave hospital and go into nursing or residential care or receive care in their own homes. Given that the Conservative party's spokesman, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), has agreed that such things are important, it is odd that that party should stand in the way of such investment.
  The Conservative party accepts that money is needed and it has identified areas in which it could be spent. If we care about patients in the national health service, surely the proper thing to do is to release funding into the health service. If the Conservative party wishes to propose different reforms from those that the Government have put forward, it can make that case. However, given the size of the Government's majority, the chance of there being an election in the next three years is extremely slender. There is an urgent need for expenditure in the NHS now, and the Conservative party should support such expenditure given that it accepts the need for it.
  The second and even more fundamental reason why the Conservative party should support the resolution is that it is not about the national insurance increases but, in effect, about the hypothecation to the NHS of the money derived from those increases. It will specifically allow the increase in the national insurance take to be devoted to the NHS. That is a requirement under the legislation covering the national insurance fund, but that requirement appears to have escaped the Government. That is why we are having to go through this somewhat awkward procedure of debating Budget resolutions and then this resolution before we get on to discussing the national insurance legislation. Nevertheless, that procedure must be fol lowed.
  972
  The Conservative party is worried about tax rises and how they will be used, but this is one occasion on which the House can have a direct say about how money is spent and make sure that it is devoted to the NHS. The House hardly ever takes that opportunity, because we hardly ever debate in detail the way in which money raised is devoted to specific expenditure. Parliament devotes some days of the year to such discussions, but the debates are hardly ever put to a vote. The last time that a specific vote took place was when the then Lord Chancellor decided to redecorate and add a bathroom to his residence. I do not, of course, refer to the current Lord Chancellor, because that took place many years ago. In the past century, the House has hardly ever taken the opportunity to put such matters to a vote, so the Opposition should welcome this opportunity to nail the Government's feet to the floor and ensure that the money goes where they say it will go.
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has laid great stress on the argument that the motion will hypothecate all the yield from the increased rates of national insurance contributions to the national health service. However, his argument is blown clean out of the water by the Red Book. The yield from the changes is £8 billion, but only £2.4 billion is being voted to the national health service.
  Matthew Taylor: At the end of my speech, I shall consider the weakness of hypothecating increases. When one spends more money than the increase on a service area, one can hypothecate the rise but there is no guarantee that money will not flow out at the other end of the expenditure. I shall come to that point, because I have a proposal for the House. However, the extra sums of money raised from national insurance over the next few years will broadly link in with the extra money going into the health service.
  Mr. Dorrell: Hang on a moment. The hon. Gentleman bases his argument on the principle of hypothecation, but the Red Book makes it clear that the increases in the financial year beginning next April will raise £8 billion. In the same year, according to the Red Book, we are being asked to vote £2.4 billion of that to the NHS. By my arithmetic, that leaves £5.6 billion going spare.
  Matthew Taylor: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that there is a problem with the proposed form of hypothecation. However, although the forward spending figures show a shortfall for the early years, that is reversed later on and the national health service will end up getting more money than is proposed. I agree that there is a problem with the clarity and effectiveness of hypothecation, but there is no sleight of hand in the long run because the Government are devoting more money to the NHS than they are raising through hypothecation. So the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in the long run.
  The public are concerned about three things: honesty, whether their money is well spent and whether it goes to the NHS. On honesty, as I have said before, it is impossible to believe that the Government were not aware before the general election that they had to raise extra money for the NHS by increasing taxes. That is not credible because the general public knew that that had to happen. Indeed, they told the Government that they would have to raise taxes to sort out the NHS and

  973
  overwhelmingly supported the idea. Interestingly, when the Liberal Democrats proposed such increases, we were told that the public would not support them in practice, but the Budget is phenomenally popular. It has received overwhelming public support, even among the majority of Conservative voters.
  The problem, however, is that the Government were not honest. They attempted to evade the issue even to the point that while ruling out income tax rises, they were prepared to change their position on national insurance. It is only on the most extreme technical reading of the Government's position that the Chancellor can defend the Budget by saying:
  "We have kept all our promises on tax. It is a complete falsehood to suggest we haven't."
  It is clear that they did not set out that they would increase tax to save the NHS when they knew that they would have to. Indeed, the Chancellor's aides, before and since the Budget, said time and again that he knew all along that that would have to happen.
  Frankly, had the Prime Minister explained the real position in the 1997 manifesto, the Government would still have had a clear mandate, albeit for a different purpose. Rather than saying that they would not increase income tax or have no plans to increase national insurance or raise its cap, it would have been more accurate and honest for them to say, "We will double NHS expenditure in real terms within a decade. In our first term, we will raise taxes by stealth to pay off the Tory deficit. In our second, we will raise annual taxes openly by £8 billion on jobs and incomes to secure the future of the NHS and education." They say that they have done nothing dishonest because they told people exactly what they would do, but few would agree with them.
  The Government will discover at the ballot box that they have done a great disservice, both to themselves and to politics. Whatever they say at the next election, people will find it harder to believe them and, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) said, this is not the first time that this has happened. The Conservatives did the same thing in 1979 and, more relevantly, in 1992, when the re-election of the Conservative Government was followed by the biggest tax increases in history. The Government are eroding public confidence in the political process and politicians. Even our party is made aware of that lack of confidence, and we spelled out the true position in those election campaigns.
  Nevertheless, when we knock on doors we find that there is now palpable cynicism about politicians in general. There is every reason to suppose that in tomorrow's local elections we will see an even lower turnout because of increased reluctance to vote for politicians and perhaps, although I hope not, electors turning away from mainstream political parties, in some cases towards extremes. If that happens, it will be partly because of this House.
  Mr. Tom Harris: I disagree very strongly with the hon. Gentleman's conclusions. This Government have done more than any other to make sure that their manifesto commitments are precisely enacted. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to tell the House where, in the 1997 or 2001 manifestos, Labour says other than that it would
  974
  not increase the basic or higher rates of income tax. Nothing in the proposal before the House today contradicts anything in those manifestos, and that is because this party is the honest party of government.
  Matthew Taylor: It is very difficult to publish a full list of everything that one will not do, but it is fairly common in a manifesto to concentrate on the things that one will do. It is clear that the Government knew that they were going to introduce a very large increase in tax for the NHS, and they declined to put that in the manifesto. That may be the hon. Gentleman's view of complete and utter honesty, but he will find, on the doorstep, that his electorate disagree with him.
  We have seen an increase in tax on incomes broadly equivalent to a 1p increase in the basic rate of income tax, plus another penny on the rest of income tax. The difference that the Chancellor seeks to set out between the national insurance increase and the income tax increase that he has ruled out is nothing but a fig leaf, and frankly that leaves him unpleasantly exposed.
  The issue for a Labour Government, however, is worse than that. In his latest excuse, the Chancellor struggles to argue that his measure protects pensioners, but of course it does not protect pensioners as a whole. The great majority of pensioners—two thirds—pay no tax. The measure protects pensioners who are in the fortunate position of having a large income, many of whom live off large investments. At the same time, the policy increases tax for some people on very low incomes—the people whom the Labour party has traditionally sought to defend. Multi-millionaire pensioners have never been particularly high on Labour's list of priorities, so it is a little surprising to find that they are now a higher priority than some of the very poorest in this country, who work and try to earn an income.
  Mr. Terry Rooney rose—
  John Mann rose—
  Matthew Taylor: I shall give way in a moment, but first I want to give figures to support my case.
  The Treasury's own figures for changes in the overall tax burden in Labour's first term show that, taking all taxes into account, tax on the poorest quintile of households in the country rose 3 per cent., from 38 to 41 per cent. The rise for the highest quintile was only I per cent., from 36 to 37 per cent. The net result is that a 2 per cent. gap favouring the richest has risen to 4 per cent. since Labour took office.
  John Mann: I want to clarify an extremely important point about the Liberal Democrats' policy on pensioners. There is a new group of relatively wealthy pensioners—those workers, many of them ex-miners, who are to receive compensation for industrial injury and asbestos-related conditions. In my constituency, there are 7,500 such people, and there are many more in other constituencies. They will receive a significant amount of capital, from which they will earn income, and they will also receive a small occupational pension from the National Coal Board. Some of them may move into taxation. The hon. Gentleman speaks of rich pensioners. I would say that those whom I described, a significant

  975
  group, are getting deferred earnings. They are being paid because of employer errors in the past or poor management. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that they should be taxed?
  Matthew Taylor: The problem is that if such people were 55, had been involved in an industrial accident, had received a pay-out and had the sort of income that the hon. Gentleman describes, they would be asked to pay a tax increase, but if they happened to be 65, they would not. It has always been the view of the hon. Gentleman's party and ours that people should pay according to their means and their ability to pay. Of course their real costs must be taken into account, but I do not see the differentiation.
  I pick on the argument because it is the one that the Chancellor is using to defend his position. In order to hold to their income tax pledge while in effect introducing an income tax rise, Labour has picked a slightly different form of tax, which has a peculiar effect. A pensioner with an income of £100,000 a year—a retired chief of a conglomerate, perhaps Rupert Murdoch if he happened to live and pay taxes in this country—would pay no extra tax towards the NHS, but somebody working part-time on less than £5,000 a year would be subject to a tax increase.
  In terms of equity and fairness, that seems a peculiar choice for the Government to have made, were it not for the fact that they are trying to use it as a fig leaf so that they can say that they stuck by a policy, when anyone with common sense knows they have not. They might as well have admitted it, because the public agree with the policy that they have followed. The public do not make the distinction that the Government think they do, so the Government might as well have said to people, "We did not tell you the truth before the election, but we do believe that this is important for the NHS, so we're spending your money even without your permission." That is exactly what has happened.
  Mr. Rooney: For clarity, will the hon. Gentleman tell us at what level of pensioner income the Liberal Democrats propose a tax increase?
  Matthew Taylor: We have made our position clear. We believe that there should have been a 1p increase on income tax and a rise to 50 per cent. for the top rate of tax on income over £100,000 a year. The straightforward answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that it would depend on the pensioner's income. A rise in income tax would have fallen far more fairly. Because of the Government's income tax pledge, every time they have raised taxes, the increase has fallen harder on the poor than on the rich. The figures that I presented earlier show that the rich have been even more advantaged by Government policy, compared to the poor.
  Mr. Tom Harris rose—
  Matthew Taylor: I shall give way once more, then I must move on, as I have been speaking for some time.
  Mr. Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. How does he square that claim with the fact that in the four years to 2001, the poorest 20 per cent. of households saw their income grow at exactly the same rate as the richest 20 per cent.? He should compare that with the years up
  976
  till the Labour Government were elected, when the richest 20 per cent. of households saw their income increase by 30 times the rate of the poorest households.
  Matthew Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech from last week on the Budget resolutions, he will see that I said that the two ways in which the Government have spent the money is, first, on paying off the Conservative deficit and, secondly, on measures of redistribution. However, that redistribution has been limited in its target. Low earners without children have been disadvantaged by the Government's policy. The overall tax burden has shifted against the poor, which I think is wrong. I acknowledge some of the changes that the Chancellor has made, but they have been at the expense of the investment in health and education that we believe is necessary.
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The hon. Gentleman has been at great pains today and yesterday to quote the Treasury Committee's report on the Budget. Does he recall that one of the Committee's conclusions was that the Budget is redistributive, which the Committee welcomed? That included both the working tax credit and the child tax credit.
  Matthew Taylor: I have just acknowledged the redistributive nature of the Budget, but it is not as redistributive as it could have been. Indeed, the overall policies are not as good as they could have been if the Government had not become hitched on their income tax pledge for purely political reasons. I do not think that anyone in the Treasury seriously believes otherwise. After all, the Chancellor has two hats: that of Chancellor and that of chairman of the Labour party general election campaign team in two elections. The idea that he did not know what he was doing is very hard to accept.
  There is another peculiarity. The Government chose to raise employers' national insurance rather than to take the route for which we argued and adopt a new top rate of tax. Again, that decision was based on a Labour pledge, although briefings from the Chancellor's friends suggest that he would have preferred the 50 per cent. rate. However, his manifesto—after all, that is what it was—ruled that out, so he cannot take that approach. The result is a taxation policy that increases tax on employers and hits manufacturing in particular, as well as other businesses with low margins and high employment. At the same time, it does relatively little to put any cap on the consumer boom that is forcing up house prices in London and the south-east—increases that are driven not least by the many people on very high incomes in that area.
  From any normal reading of the state of the economy, one would suggest damping down the consumer side but giving some help and encouragement to manufacturing, which has suffered from some 150,000 job losses in the past year and, according to the OECD, some 400.000 job losses since 1995, as well as a substantial loss of competitiveness. Of course, a disproportionate number of Labour Members represent the areas that have been hardest hit by that decline and by the current exchange rate. Again, the only possible interpretation is clear. After all, the Treasury issued press releases as recently as 1999 arguing that the reason for the cut in NICs was as follows:
  "We are cutting tax on employment … encouraging employment opportunities".

  977
  The Treasury therefore acknowledged the link between employers' national insurance contributions and the effect on jobs. The only possible conclusion is that the Government were prepared to sacrifice jobs in the wider community for the sake of protecting jobs on their own Benches in the general election.
  I shall be very brief on the further issue of importance: how the money is spent. Indeed, I think that I have said almost enough about that; I have spoken longer than I intended in order to answer questions. It is quite clear that training more doctors and nurses is a crucial target for investment if we are to have the doctors and nurses that we need for the future. It is crucial to put money into local authorities for expenditure on social security placements and supporting people in their own homes, and on nursing and residential beds, which can very quickly free hospital beds.
  It is also vital to invest in better pay and conditions for professional low-paid staff in the NHS—an issue about which the Government have made some worrying statements in the past few weeks. That investment is crucial not for moral reasons—we can all talk about the wonderful job that doctors, nurses and others do in the NHS—but for a practical and economic reason: these people are currently fleeing the NHS because they cannot afford to stay in it, especially in the areas of highest housing cost. It is impossible to deliver a better NHS if its experienced staff are leaving it and we are not training sufficient numbers even to replace them.
  Finally, I should like to mention another aspect of the Government's peculiar position on tax. I gather from Ministers who argue in favour of a national insurance rise and against an income tax rise that it remains the Government's position to rule out income tax rises in this Parliament, but not further national insurance rises. That is the only logic in their position. Given that the National Institute of Economic and Social Research said today that it believes that the Government's figures could create a medium-term funding gap, the Government may have to resort to further increases.
  Since the national insurance contributions Bill has not been published, perhaps the Chief Secretary will clarify what we will be asked to vote for. Will it be an enabling measure that allows further changes without more legislation, or can the Chief Secretary guarantee that a similar legislative proposal will have to be made before any such change can take place?
  Dawn Primarolo: Yes.Dawn Primarolo: Yes.
  Matthew Taylor: The Financial Secretary says yes. I hope that she is right because that is important.
  Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend mentioned the need to tackle social services problems. The money that the Government raise will be spent on social services, and the local authority national insurance bill will match that sum. Yet if social services departments do not perform, they will be fined. Does not he believe that the Government must tackle that, even if we generally welcome the extra revenue?
  Matthew Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. Most social services departments spend much more than the
  978
  Government standard spending assessment. Even if the Government give extra money that is theoretically tied to social services, money is already being spent and national insurance money is being lost from elsewhere. There is therefore no guarantee that the extra money will contribute to improvements to support the elderly in the first year. After that, there will be increases.
  I have already argued that the matter is urgent because beds in hospitals are currently blocked. The sooner we get the money in the better. I hope that the Government have the chance to do that because the comprehensive spending review is still to come. I also hope that they will seriously consider local government problems. I fear that if they do not tackle them, the improvements in getting elderly patients out of hospital beds that they do not need and into residential, nursing or supported care will not be made as quickly as they should. The beds will not be free for other patients and the improvements in the NHS will not happen. That is the Conservative party's only chance of rubbishing the NHS and making its case for ultimately dismantling it.
  Let us consider hypothecation. For many years, we have argued that it is possible to hypothecate a rise. That is now happening and we welcome it, although it was not done as honestly as we would wish. At least the Government have taken the advice. We have witnessed the popular support for the action, and that is some vindication of our argument. However, in the long run, if we hypothecate £2 billion, £3 billion or £8 billion to a budget of £60 billion, £70 billion, £80 billion or even, in future, more than £100 billion, there is no guarantee that the Treasury will not decide that it is short of money for transport, education or a new plane for the Prime Minister and grab some of it back because the NHS is no longer so high on the list.
  Even if the Government remain in office, there is no guarantee that, in the long term, the money will go where they say it will. Of course, if the Conservative party is elected, there is no guarantee that the money will remain with the NHS. The Government can hide behind snatching the money, leave the provisions for national insurance as they are but use the money for other purposes.
  The Chancellor ruled out the suggestion, but I urge the Government to consider hypothecating a whole income stream to the NHS so that it can have greater certainty and transparency. People would know when they paid the tax that it went straight to the NHS and that any change would help the NHS, or hurt it if the Government chose to take money away.
  The two national insurance figures that the Government have published show that in 2007–08 the figures are close. Therefore, why not hypothecate national insurance? That has happened historically, and there has been a link with the NHS. Such hypothecation would provide a broad-based income stream that increased broadly in line with growth in the economy. It would give the NHS a good base, and when people paid that money they would know that it went to the health service.
  The Government have chosen a route that includes an opportunity that is worth considering. The national insurance system could be reformed; people may believe that using a different tax is a better route.
  Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again. This is a relatively old potato.

  979
  If the Liberal party is really going to nail its colours to this mast, it must ensure that its supporters understand that, when the economy goes into a dip—all economies go up and down—the result of its policy will be NHS cuts. Will he explain that to his supporters?
  Matthew Taylor: The answer to that is that we would treat this income flow in exactly the same way as the Treasury now wisely treats its overall income flows. It plans on the basis of long-term growth in the economy rather than short-term swings up and down. If it undershoots on its growth figure this year, as it is, it will not cut expenditure because it knows that, provided it remains in line with the 2.5 per cent. growth forecast, it will get the revenue back in future years.
  That is not a difficult process, and it is one that the Government have already introduced. The real issue is whether we can find ways of reconnecting the electorate to the tax that they pay and the decisions that are taken about it. The population are cynical about politics at the moment, and do not believe that the money they pay goes where the politicians claim it will go. Our proposal represents a way of addressing that problem, and of reconnecting people to the spending decisions being made.
  The Conservative Opposition seem to be in the most appalling position at the moment. They are denying the NHS the money that it needs now for doctors and nurses, to back a policy that they have not even invented yet and will not be able to introduce for at least three years. If that policy turns out to be about tearing up the NHS, they will not be able to introduce it in the lifetime of any of those on their Benches, because I do not believe that the public would support the break-up of the NHS. The Conservatives also have to get over the problem that people remember just how badly they treated the NHS when they were in office. People remember the destruction and underfunding of services and the appalling treatment that patients received over many years. If there are problems now, they are in large measure the inheritance of what has gone before.
  We know the excuse that the Conservatives make, because we heard it yesterday from the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). When questioned on an event in 1995—not that long ago—during their last term in office, he said:
  "I disclaim all responsibility for It immediately on the ground that I was not here, I did not know, I am not responsible, I cannot be brought to book, and it is a matter of the most stupefying irrelevance to me."—[>Official Report, 30 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 822–23.]
  Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, the British people were here when the Conservatives had charge of the NHS. They know what happened, they hold the Conservatives responsible and they still consider that highly relevant. As long as that is the case, the Conservatives will not be in a position to influence the future of the NHS, thank God.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. Tom Harris: Thank you for calling me to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had the good fortune to be here yesterday during all seven hours of the debate on the Finance Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to take to task some of my hon. Friends who told me afterwards that it was a
  980
  waste of time if one did not get called to speak. I am sure you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is not a waste of time when you are enjoying the eloquent contributions from both sides of the House on a subject as important as the Finance Bill, and that there is more point to being in the Chamber than simply speaking. I am delighted, however, to be given the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has, apparently, been talking to a great many public servants, including nurses and police officers, who are appalled at the content of the Budget and who are absolutely opposed to the proposed increase in national insurance contributions.
  I am sure that every hon. Member has shared my experience of being identified by friends and family, immediately after being elected to this place, as a spokesperson for a party or for the Government. After I was elected. I received not only congratulations, but much criticism and many appeals from friends, some of whom work in the health service. They pleaded with me to use my considerable influence with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to get him to increase taxes or national insurance contributions to bring about a huge investment in the NHS. That view is reflected in opinion polls.
  I spoke to nurses in my constituency before and after the Budget. Before the Budget they said, "Please give us the extra money. We don't mind paying extra taxes", and after they Budget they said, "Congratulations. Fantastic. That is such a welcome Budget." I have never experienced such popular support for any Budget.
  Mr. Iain Luke: Does my hon. Friend accept that that view is held not only by workers in the NHS, but by 74 per cent. of the general population? The majority of Conservative voters also believe that this is a good Budget.
  Mr. Harris: My hon. Friend is correct. I am somewhat bemused by the hostile reaction of Conservative Members to a proposal that enjoys great support among their dwindling band of supporters.
  I should like to refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor). There is an old story, which is worth re-telling, about the person who phones the Liberal Democrats' headquarters one night, gets the answer machine and is told to leave a message after the high moral tone.
  The Liberal Democrats constantly criticise the Government and the Conservatives for being dishonest. Me thinks that they protest too much. We know their strategy. We have all been involved in by-elections and we have seen the way in which they behave during campaigns. It is purely a device to allow them to take the moral high ground. They take every opportunity to criticise the honesty of the Labour party and the Conservative party—I am not defending the Conservative party: I will leave that to Conservative Members. The hon. Gentleman, by the language he uses, tries to create and encourage the electoral cynicism that he criticises and that is a major problem in society today. I do not accept that he does that with the correct motives.
  The Budget, especially the increase in national insurance contributions, was described by many commentators as representing a sea change in the direction that the

  981
  Government are taking. One commentator described it as the first Labour Budget since 1979. I completely disagree. Yes, it is a redistributive Budget—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is about national insurance contributions.
  Mr. Harris: I appreciate your direction, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who managed to bring the euro into the debate. That was very impressive, but I shall try to keep to the subject.
  The rise in national insurance contributions is a redistributive measure. There is no doubt about that. Some Labour candidates have to say "redistribution" in a lower voice than they may have used in previous years, but I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary nodding when I describe the Budget as redistributive. [Interruption.]
  The Budget and the national insurance contribution rise have been welcomed by many of my constituents. I am interested and fascinated to learn that the Conservatives will vote against this measure. They have compared it with a 1 per cent. increase in the bottom, middle and higher income tax brackets. Thus, I assume that, instead of supporting the national insurance rise, they will propose a 1 per cent. increase in the bottom, middle and higher rate of income tax. I am sure that at some point in the next three years we will know whether that comes to pass.
  If Opposition Members have a copy of the 2001 Labour party manifesto to hand—I am sure they all do—I challenge them to say now where it refers to our keeping national insurance contributions at the existing level. The fact of the matter is that the Government made a commitment to keep the basic and upper rate of income tax at 2001 levels.
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the difference between income tax and a tax on income?
  Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that national insurance contributions are a tax on earnings, not on income. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell pointed out that many pensioners would not have to make national insurance contributions if they were earning money from their savings. There is an obvious difference between the two mechanisms, which is one reason why I am delighted that the Government have chosen this one.
  Mr. Lidington: Does the hon. Gentleman think, then, that the hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) was straying off message when he said on 4 June 2001
  "we have absolutely no plans to raise the ceiling on National Insurance"?
  Mr. Harris: I cannot speak for my hon. Friend, but I know that when I was campaigning for the 2001 general election I explained to my constituents exactly what was in the party manifesto, and I know that the Government have stuck to the commitments in that manifesto—which is more than the Conservatives ever managed to do.
  982
  Although yesterday's debate was not about increases in national insurance contributions, it focused on the Budget and national insurance was mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, said that the reason why the increase was on the cards was the NHS. I disagree with one thing he said, however. He said we should be trying to recreate the consensus between the two parties in favour of the NHS. In 1948 there was no consensus in the House for the creation of the NHS, but there are close similarities between the position now and that in 1948.
  Like the Attlee Government, the present Government face a Tory party that will always side with the vested interests of the medical profession rather than with patients. They face a party that opposes the public financing of the NHS, and has yet to commit itself publicly to an NHS that is free to all at the point of use. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to commit his party to that aim, I shall be delighted.
  Dr. Murrison: I am not going to commit my party or indeed myself, but I would like to make an observation, as a member of the medical profession. The hon. Gentleman said that the medical profession would always side with the Conservatives; I think that our experience over 18 years suggests the opposite.
  Mr. Harris: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because I wanted to deal with a proposal that I know to be supported by many of my colleagues.
  We have talked of the importance of reform of the NHS, hand in hand with the increased investment. Every health service employee works full time for the health service and is paid full time by it, but the problem of waiting lists can never be dealt with through the national insurance increase until we can get consultants' contracts sorted out.
  If a consultant is paid full time by the NHS, he or she should work full time for the NHS. That is an important reform that must be made if the money we are asking people to contribute from their income is to be used properly. I expect considerable opposition to that proposal from the Conservatives: after all, the idea of a consultant's working full time for the NHS is presumably anathema to many of them.
  Mr. Mark Hoban: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read a document called "Delivering the Change", which is the Government's blueprint for delivery of the NHS plan. It refers to increasing the provision of health care provided by the private sector. If the hon. Gentleman rules out consultants' working—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a little wide of the subject. I again remind all Members that we are debating national insurance contributions. There can be reference to the financing of the NHS.
  Mr. Harris: Again I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and 1 shall try not to deviate further.
  As I have said, national insurance is not an income tax. I believe that the modest increase proposed by the Chancellor is welcomed by the public, and should be

  983
  welcomed by the House. I know it will be welcomed by nearly all those employed by the NHS, and by all who are treated in the NHS.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I begin by declaring an interest. I am a director of, and a shareholder in, two businesses that operate in this country. They employ people, so they have an interest in the burden that this national insurance measure will impose on employers' costs, and which I want to discuss.
  I think it fitting that the House should debate this increase in national insurance contributions on the fifth anniversary of this Government's election. The fact that the increase forms the centrepiece of this year's Budget finally strips away any shred of respectability from the balloon of rhetoric that secured the Government's election in 1997. They were elected on the basis that new Labour was going to be different from old Labour, that the third way was something different from what we had seen before in British politics, and that it would usher in a new way of doing business in politics.
  It is worth reminding ourselves of why we were asked to believe that new Labour was different. We should look at such claims in the context of this Budget and the national insurance contribution's role as its centrepiece. The most important claim made for new Labour, as distinct from old Labour, was that the latter was in favour of tax and spend but that the former had somehow found a new way of dealing with the dilemmas at the heart of the delivery of public services. New Labour was going to be something different. Amid all the rhetoric, it was not entirely clear why it was going to be different, but under new Labour we were definitely not going to witness merely a return to the tax and spend ways with which we became extremely familiar under Labour Governments of the 1960s and 1970s.
  I enjoyed the contribution of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who does not worry too much about the distinction between old Labour and new Labour. In his own rather endearing way, he reminded the House that the centrepiece of this year's Budget is the national insurance surcharge that he himself had justified as a Treasury Minister 25 years earlier. The fact that the man who introduced the tax increase that was necessary under the old Labour days of the Callaghan Government is supporting—on exactly the same basis as 25 years ago—this year's increase rather makes my own case for me. He said that he introduced the national insurance surcharge 25 years ago, and that he is happy to support in the House of Commons today the introduction of the same policy under a new Labour Government.
  As I said, the right hon. Gentleman is not too concerned about distinctions between new Labour and old Labour. He recognises the essential truth of this Budget: the national insurance contribution increase is a simple, straightforward, £8 billion tax increase. That is what this Budget introduced, and that is what we are debating in today's ways and means resolution.
  Mr. Luke: Is it not true that the UK's economic situation was completely different 25 years ago? One major initiative of this Government was to put the power
  984
  to change interest rates in the hands of the Bank of England. The past five years have been very prosperous. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about different era.
  Mr. Dorrell: I suspect that you might interrupt me, Madam Deputy Speaker, were I to discuss monetary policy. I do not propose to go there, other than simply to observe that I actually agree with that aspect of Government policy. What I disagree with is a return to tax and spend, and that is what we are debating this afternoon.
  Of course, the distinction to which I referred was not the only one that we were asked to believe that the new Labour Government, led by the current Prime Minister, would draw between themselves and old Labour traditions. We were asked to believe that whereas old Labour had been distinctly suspicious of the wealth creation process and tended to regard the business community as a milch cow to pay for its public spending ambitions, new Labour would be totally different. After all, it had—we were told—spent many years in opposition on the famous prawn cocktail circuit, it had many friends in business, it understood the wealth creation process and it would be a business-friendly Government. However, in recent months and years, the business community has grown more and more suspicious of the developing record of the Government. In the light of the Budget—especially the £8 billion tax increase—it is crystal clear what the friendship between new Labour and the business community is worth.
  Despite all the crocodile tears about the manufacturing sector, the difficulty of trading in a global economy on the basis of a strong pound, and all the rhetoric about the importance of employing people, about wealth creation and about a Budget for enterprise, we have already had a £5 billion tax increase on pension funds in the Government's first five years—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the comments I made earlier, and I remind him of them.
  Mr. Dorrell: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was linking the £5 billion increase in tax on pension funds that has already been introduced with the £4 billion—of the £8 billion that we are discussing today—that will land directly on the cost of employing people in the British economy. When we consider whether that is a sensible tax policy, we should recognise that those two measures alone—ignoring all the smaller measures that the Government have introduced—constitute a direct increase of £9 billion in the cost of employing people. Through those two measures, this pro-business new Labour Government will be responsible for a £9 billion increase in the cost of employing people. The two measures that we are discussing today alone constitute a tax increase of £8 billion from 6 April next year.
  I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we should oppose this ways and means resolution tonight, because I regard it as simply a tax increase. What is worse, it comes on top of previous tax increases that have already constituted a substantial increase in the cost of employing people.
  John Mann: The right hon. Gentleman talks about tax increases on business. Have the corporation tax and capital gains tax paid by his businesses gone up or down?
  Mr. Dorrell: I am delighted to say that the corporation tax burden is lower than it used to be, but I am focusing the attention of the House on what is alleged to be one of the policy objectives of the Government—the encouragement of the employment of British people in the British economy in the wealth creation process. It is an odd way to encourage something to happen to put an extra tax burden of £9 billion on that activity.
  Mr. Hendrick: When unemployment is a fraction of what it was under the Conservatives, does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that this Government's judgment is better than his own was as part of the previous Government?
  Mr. Dorrell: I am coming to exactly that point, because I wish to explore why I am opposed to tax increases in this economy at this time. I shall talk about health later, in which I have a political interest, but I wish first to focus the House's attention on the economic consequences of the tax increase and the reasons why we should not support it.
  It is important not to allow ourselves to spend—as we have—many years focusing on the importance of competitiveness and the need to compete in a global economy, and then to throw that analysis out of the window the moment that we have some tough decisions to make on health. Simply because it is said to be necessary for the NHS, a tax increase of £8 billion is allowed to go through with no questions asked. The line adopted by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) was that we should be content to vote through the tax increase simply because the Chancellor has said that it is needed for health.
  Before I return to that argument. I shall focus on the economic case against a tax increase. Britain led the way in Europe towards a low-tax, competitive, flexible and market-oriented economy. We did not do that through any great foresight. By the end of the 1970s, Britain faced worse problems than any other country did. We had no choice but to cut taxes and make the economy more flexible so that we could be more competitive.
  After 18 years in opposition, the Labour party finally said that it had taken the point and that it understood the need for a low-tax, competitive economy. Since the Labour Government came to power, however, they have started to increase the tax burden again. I have already mentioned two measures, and there are many others. This Budget takes the process a big stage further, just when our competitors around the world are understanding the importance of cutting the tax burdens on their economies.
  The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) asked about the low levels of unemployment and Britain's economic success in recent years, and it is true that there has been more competitive economic activity and more successful wealth generation here. That has happened because we have had a lower-tax, more flexible economy than our competitors. The Government are reversing that: they are raising taxes in the British economy just when
  986
  Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the United States and Japan—our competitors in an increasingly open and flexible world market place—are cutting taxes.
  It is not good enough for hon. Members to say that a private problem in Britain with respect to health care means that we are locked out of the global economy. We are throwing to the winds everything learned in the past 25 years, and we are raising taxes just when the lessons that we learned the hard way are being applied by our competitors to make their economies more competitive.
  Mr. Tom Harris: The right hon. Gentleman decries the Government's decision to treat the NHS as a priority. Does he not agree that, if the Government to whom he belonged had treated the NHS as the priority that it was in the 1980s, we might have avoided the crisis now facing the service?
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall come to the NHS later, but just now I shall simply observe that the Government cannot say that difficulties in the NHS must give rise to a tax increase. I am depressed by the fact that we have been misled by Government spin in this debate. I congratulate the Chancellor on the way in which he has presented his tax increase. He has introduced a big, tax-increasing Budget and has invited us to debate health care.
  If I wanted to introduce a tax-increasing Budget in today's world, I should take the same approach, but that does not mean that we—the legislators being asked to approve the tax increase—should vote it through just because of a convenient argument in support of the Budget. I believe that we should look at the downsides of the case that the Chancellor has presented. One of the key downsides is that the rise represents a significant increase in the tax burden on business, and that it will significantly undermine our economy's competitiveness.
  Matthew Taylor: There is an argument—it is legitimate, but I do not agree with it—that says that tax burdens need to be lowered to improve competitiveness. That can be done in two ways. First, one can build up a big deficit. That is not a legitimate approach: it happened under the previous Conservative Government, although I admit that they planned to reduce it later with tax rises. The second option is to cut expenditure. How would the right hon. Gentleman cut expenditure significantly, and in which services? I remind him that Conservative Front-Bench Members have ruled that out.
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall make my speech in my own way, as the hon. Gentleman did. However, I wanted to focus the House's attention on the fact that this is a tax increase. That rather obvious point seems to have escaped much public attention so far.
  In his speech, the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell said that we needed to reconnect voters with the political process. He may find that tax increases are quite a good way to achieve exactly that.
  There is another reason for attacking this tax-increasing Budget, and this proposal in particular, which represents the bulk of the tax increases. Several speakers, including the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, have noted that the Government said that the increases would not be necessary. Indeed, before the last general election, the

  987
  Government cut income tax. They cut the direct tax burden and told people that they would do more of the same if they were re-elected.
  The Government's actions are breathtakingly cynical—there is no other way to describe them. The Government cut income tax before the election, but raised national insurance contributions after it. Labour Members should not be surprised at what happens when their constituents come to understand that the NHS will not change overnight, but that their tax bills will, on 6 April next year. Labour Members will then have to explain why tax bills are rising, despite their repeated assurances less than 12 months ago that no such rise was necessary.
  How do the Government defend the tax increase? I repeat that the Chancellor has introduced a tax increase and tried to persuade us to avert our eyes from all conventional economic arguments and focus on the health argument. It has been said that the tax rise is necessary for health.
  In an intervention on the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell I said that that is simple arithmetical nonsense. The Chancellor is raising £8 billion in extra tax, and is spending £2.4 billion of it on the NHS. He must therefore justify the other £5.6 billion. He cannot say that all of it is needed by the NHS, as he is not committing to the NHS well over half of the sum that he is raising. In fact, he is committing at least as much to the tax credit programme as to the NHS, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), the shadow spokesman on work and pensions, has made clear. So it is arithmetically untrue to say that the tax increase is justified by increased health spending.
  There is another argument to be made. As the Red Book makes clear, total Government expenditure in 2003–04 will be £390 billion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is asking us to believe that we must accept all the economic damage flowing from this huge tax increase in order to deliver an extra £2.4 billion to the NHS next year—extra money that amounts to 0.6 per cent. of expected Government expenditure.
  This Government say that they embrace the need to make hard choices. Does any hon. Member really believe that it is impossible to find, in total Government expenditure of £390 billion, an extra £2.4 billion for the NHS? If the Chancellor and the Prime Minister want those extra resources to be made available to the NHS, is it impossible for what the Prime Minister has called hard choices to be made to free up those resources?
  Mr. Hendrick: If the right hon. Gentleman wished to find that money from elsewhere in the £390 billion he mentioned, which services and provisions would he cut?
  Mr. Dorrell: It is one of the joys of government that the Government have to make choices. I am simply asking people to embrace the concept that in £390 billion of public expenditure there is not, somewhere, £2.4 billion—roughly 0.5 per cent.—that could not be better spent on health. I challenge Labour Members to say that they could not find, if they really had to, 0.6 per cent. out of that budget to spend on health.
  Mr. Tom Harris: The right hon. Gentleman served in a previous Government as Secretary of State for Health. Can he tell us from his experience how easy it would have
  988
  been to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to surrender £4 billion of their own budgets, and if it was easy, why did he not do it?
  Mr. Dorrell: It flatters my vanity but achieves almost no other purpose to tell the hon. Gentleman of the headline that said, "Dorrell wins £4 billion for the national health service". I guess that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
  There is no escape from the conclusion that the Government are introducing this tax increase because they are running away from the need, to use their own rhetoric, to make hard choices and decisions.
  Is the economic damage associated with the tax increase at least mitigated by the fact that extra money is being voted into the national health service? I stand as a strong supporter of the principle of access to health care. We must continue to embrace the ideal that health care should be available on the basis of clinical need, not on ability to pay. We should also embrace the ideal of delivering world-class health care to those who need it on the basis of clinical need. Last year, the World Health Organisation concluded that we were among the worst performers of any European country against those two ideals.
  The question is whether the Budget can be justified by the fact that a proportion at least of this tax increase is being committed to health care. To answer that, I invite the House to cast its mind back to a day that we shall all remember—11 September 2001. It is, of course, carved in history as a day of infamy. However, when the Prime Minister got up that morning, he wanted 11 September 2001 to be remembered for a quite different reason. On that day the Prime Minister was planning to address the Trades Union Congress about the need for fundamental reform in the delivery of public services.
  There had been extensive briefing ahead of 11 September that the autumn of 2001 was going to be when the re-elected new Labour Government engaged with their supporters about the need fundamentally to reform delivery of public services in Britain. The Prime Minister was making it clear that there would, in principle, be extra resources available, but that those resources would be conditional upon the delivery of reform.
  I believe that the Prime Minister played a distinguished role in international events at the end of last year, and I do not criticise him for not following those plans through. However, when he re-engaged in British domestic politics at the beginning of this year, we had another round of briefing about the importance of fundamental reform of the delivery of public services. That was to be another of the reasons why new Labour was different from all its predecessors. However, while the Prime Minister was away, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken control of the argument. The Chancellor had, by the beginning of the year, made it clear that there was to be more money for the health service and despite what the Prime Minister wanted and had briefed about last autumn, it was not going to be conditional on the delivery of fundamental reform.
  The Red Book has one fleeting reference to the importance of conditionality associated with the money going into the national health service. The message that comes out of the Budget and the tax increase is that the

  989
  Government are absolutely committed to a £30 billion increase in health expenditure over five years and—in parenthesis, and very much sotto voce—that that is conditional on reform. At its annual conference immediately after the Budget, the Royal College of Nursing made it crystal clear that it understood that the money was available and the conditionality had simply disappeared.
  The Budget introduces a huge tax increase, avoiding the need for difficult decisions in public expenditure programmes, and the Government are vacating the ground of fundamental reform of the national health service. We are being asked to bless a huge increase of extra resources for a fundamentally unreformed structure.
  I come back to the point with which I began. Today, five years on from the election of the new Labour Government, we see that they are, in truth, simply another tax-and-spend Government who run away from the hard decisions about choices within public expenditure and the need for fundamental reform of public services.
  6.7 pm
  John Mann: I have attempted to glean more information about the hard choices perceived by the Opposition. That is difficult because they are reserving judgment, so I took the liberty of examining the websites of their Treasury Front-Bench team. Only two have websites. That of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) is called the Flight Site, but, unfortunately, it crashed repeatedly, so I could not judge his views.
  Luckily, however, the website of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) was available. Unfortunately, I could find no comment on the Budget, health, taxation or national insurance contributions, but there was a questionnaire that his voters could use for giving feedback. [HON. MEMBERS: "On the Budget?"] Not quite. There were several questions eliciting voters' views on immigration, but none on the Budget. I therefore propose that he add to his website a question or two on the Budget asking whether his electorate are in favour of it and prepared to pay the additional national insurance contributions.
  My website outlines my view. It spells out that I will use my vote for the NHS. The electorate in Bassetlaw are very clear about where I stand on the issue. I have gone beyond the website in letting the local population know my views on the Budget and the hard choices. I hope that the hon. Member for Aylesbury will do likewise. I commend him on his questionnaire, which is well laid out. This is an ideal opportunity for him to do that. I have asked my researcher to monitor his website daily over the next week to see whether those questions are added. Perhaps we could have an analysis of the results as well.
  Chris Grayling: In the hon. Gentleman's efforts to find out the views of the people of Bassetlaw, has he asked them whether they believe that the extra money on national insurance will actually transform the national health service? The evidence of the opinion polls is that people have profound doubts that it will make a difference.
  John Mann: Of course I ask that. I note that the hon. Gentleman has a website, too; I should have investigated
  990
  it for good hints and tips. As I listen to the debate, I seem to be living in virtual reality but, yes, I do go out in Bassetlaw.
  Indeed, this very week, the huts that were put up as wards for Bassetlaw hospital in 1938 are being knocked down. On the eve of the Budget, in a presentation to the Bassetlaw chamber of commerce, the general manager of the hospital outlined her vision of what the hospital would be like if the resources were available—the additional provision of acute services and the use of the land on which those huts have stood since 1938. She had some answers, but what did the Bassetlaw chamber of commerce have to say? Its president, as a business man, described it as "A fair Budget".
  Like the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), I should, of course, as a shareholder and a former director of a business, declare an interest because of the implications for employers' national insurance; but I also have an interest in the corporation tax reduction. For me, profitability means that I shall receive a greater net benefit due to the reduction in corporation tax this year than the total net increase even if the higher national insurance contributions had already been in force for a year.
  Of course, the capital gains tax change for budding entrepreneurs such as myself, the right hon. Member for Charnwood and others is phenomenal: the difference for entrepreneurs in my constituency, or anywhere in the country, is formidable. I have not sold my shares, although I have an offer for them. I do only one job at a time; as an MP, I do not want two jobs. It is almost embarrassing when we consider the difference that the Chancellor and the Government have made for entrepreneurs through successive Budgets—Budgets for entrepreneurship.
  Of course, employers never want to pay more, but what are the alternatives? Let us consider them, because they have not been spelt out. There are various European models for increased taxation. Each takes more of the national income in taxation than we do, however that is dressed up. We might call them the European continental model. It has not been adopted by the Government. Some people may suggest that it is a good model, but, despite the nuances in some of the remarks of Opposition Front-Bench Members, I have not heard that from them yet.
  Another model is the American one, which is extremely interesting. There appears to be a presumption in the debate that employees and employers in the United States do not pay for their health service through taxation. That is true. In the United States, 45 per cent. of small businesses do not offer their employees private medical insurance. That possibility is not open to the 45 per cent. of employees who earn less than $7 an hour. That is one of the fundamental problems of the US health care system.
  I offer the House an example using a theoretical company. I note that the shadow Chancellor, as a Minister, employed five special advisers. If the company was American, we could call it "Special Advisers Inc.", but I shall discuss the American model later. A UK company might be called "Special Advisers Ltd."
  What would be the cost to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as an employer of five employees, of the increase in employers' national insurance contributions? It would be less than half the cheapest rate that BUPA

  991
  quoted me for insurance for such a company. BUPA offers a cut-price version, because it relies on the national health service. It has no accident or emergency facilities and there are all sorts of get-outs.
  How could I get a cut price? I should have to make a judgment about the special advisers. Currently, there are 19 of them among the Tories—11.6 per cent. of the parliamentary Conservative party were special advisers. I took an average age of 38. I thought that to take a higher age would be unfair, because, as we all know, with the American model of private health insurance, the older people are, the worse it is.
  Furthermore, in the American system, people with mental health problems cannot obtain the same insurance and they have to pay more. Discrimination against those with mental health problems has been debated in Congress during the past few weeks.
  Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman's exposition is fascinating, but I am uncertain why he is giving it: as he will be aware, the shadow Health Secretary has said clearly that we are not considering the American model.
  John Mann: At present, the Conservatives do not appear to be considering any model—not the higher-tax, European continental model, not the American model and not the UK model. I have not yet seen a new model, although I am sure that one will emerge.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Who is in government?
  John Mann: We are in government. We have made the decisions and, as I said earlier, I applaud them—so does the population. However, it is fair to discuss these points in a major debate on health and the funding of an expanded and improved health service. I am sure that everyone concurs that we want that. The debate is about how best to achieve it.
  I want to turn to the American model—Special Advisers Inc. In the American system, those 19 employees—the 11.6 per cent.—would join a union. In America, 99 per cent. of large employers have a collective bargaining agreement with a union. I picked an American union at random; it was the first website to come up when I checked—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the mark; he should come back more specifically to the matter before the House.
  John Mann: I wanted to develop the point that five options are available. Employers and employees in America pay for the funding of the health system through the collective bargaining agreement—each pays part of the cost. In principle, there is no difference between that and the changes to national insurance contributions that have been made in this country—employees and employers both pay. Anyone who suggests that the American model is different is highly misguided.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: The shadow Chancellor might not have referred to private health care, but the shadow health spokesman clearly did. Does my
  992
  hon. Friend agree that, in the United States, people in work have access to health care, but when they fall on hard times—if they are made redundant or their family circumstances change—they no longer have access to the private health schemes to which he referred? It is estimated that about 40 million Americans are not covered by any health insurance at all.
  John Mann: In the United States, 45 per cent. of workers on low wages are not offered medical insurance. The co-chair of the American social security commission, Daniel Moynihan, proposes that the retirement age should be raised to 70. That seems rather extreme because most people suggest an age between 65 and 67, but he does co-chair the commission.
  That is another alternative: we could raise the retirement age, and stop people receiving their pensions. That would be one way to solve some of the NHS funding problems in this country. It is an alternative that I entirely reject, but it is part of the debate currently under way in the United States. On average US pensioners, spend 21 per cent. of their income on health care.
  Dr. Murrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) has already pointed out that our hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) dismissed the American model as a possibility. Presumably, Labour Members have done the same thing, so the hon. Gentleman is talking hypothetically.
  John Mann: I am making a contribution to the debate by suggesting that there are three models; the United Kingdom model; the European continental model, which is a higher-tax model; and the American model. Of course, there are nuances and variations in each model, but they are the three options. There are no other alternatives, and we have to decide on one of them.
  Chris Grayling: With respect, the continental model is not a higher-tax model. In no part of the rest of western Europe does any state attempt to fund its health care system wholly by taxation through one large national bureaucracy. That is the difference in this country, and the Conservatives are challenging the status quo because we see no sign that it is delivering the kind of improvements that other countries enjoy.
  John Mann: In France, employers pay more than the national insurance contribution in this country—about twice as much. There are different ways of funding, but those employers and employees pay more. There is no such thing as a free meal ticket, so expanding the NHS—or private health, or whatever alternative is proposed-requires more expenditure. That expenditure does not come from anywhere else, unless a Government unwisely borrow money that they have not got and pretend that they can spend money now, although doing so will become a legacy for years to come.
  Thankfully, the Government have definitely chosen not to borrow. That is a difference from the past. Of course, increases in national insurance contributions are no new thing. What happened in 1981 and 1984? National insurance contributions went up in both those years. After the 1979 and 1983 general elections, national insurance contributions rose. I cannot recall whether they went up

  993
  later, under the right hon. Member for Charnwood, but national insurance contributions repeatedly rose throughout that period.
  Let us consider the tax burden under the Conservatives—the so-called business party. In 1980, 8.4 per cent. of the total tax take came from corporate income. By 1990, the figure had risen to 11.6 per cent. and, by 1997, to 12.2 per cent. In other words, a higher burden was repeatedly placed on business. It is no surprise that so much of the country's wealth had to be spent on paying for unemployment benefits and on the debt repayments involved in borrowing money to try to hold the nation together. This Government's major achievement is having moved away from both those positions.
  Under the Government's proposals, tax will rise as a proportion of national income from 37 per cent. in 2001–02, to 38.3 per cent. in 2005–06. That figure is still lower than those recorded in virtually every year of Margaret Thatcher's prime ministership. The difference is that the Government have stable spending plans based on real money, not on borrowing with hyper-inflation and high interest rates. There is a stable economy, and they are using real money, not theoretical money with a price to pay in the future. That is why the national insurance increases will not seriously damage the British economy.
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am intrigued. The farmers in my constituency are trying to recover from last year's foot and mouth outbreak, and the one thing that no one in rural areas wants at the moment is another tax increase. We are an eternally taxed economy. Unemployment is very low, but people are being driven out of jobs in rural areas. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that?
  John Mann: I was living on a beef farm during the foot and mouth crisis. My constituency is primarily rural. Some 360 square miles of it are rural, so I am very aware of the rural economy. People in the rural economy tell me that they want a health service in which they are not discriminated against. A big problem in rural areas is that people have to travel further to facilities. Such areas do not have the concentrations of support that exist in more urban areas, so people in rural areas do not get such a good service. That is precisely what the new investment will address.
  In my constituency, three new health centres—in Warsop, Harworth and Worksop—are already beyond the planning stage and moving to implementation, and that is happening before the increase. That is what the rural economy wants: good services with a rational calculation of how to pay for them.
  Of course this is a tax increase—no one has suggested that it is not—but it is popular and it will not damage the economy because of the strength of the economy. We have the fastest growing economy in the G7. We remain a low-tax economy, especially compared with our European competitors. There is a 3 per cent. difference between us and the EU average tax rate. The main rate of corporation tax—30 per cent.—is lower than that in any other major
  994
  European country. Of course the low tax position is even better for small businesses such as the one in which I have been involved.
  Mr. Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said earlier, this country can afford this tax increase because corporation tax and other business taxes in this country are lower than those of our European competitors? We can afford this small increase.
  John Mann: Our economy is growing well. Interest and inflation rates are at their lowest since the 1960s. The unemployment rate—3.1 per cent.—is the lowest since August 1975. An extra 1.5 million people have been employed since May 1997. We have a strong and stable economy, so it is a question of choices.
  I shall end on the choices that are available. Private health care is like travel insurance, and we all know what happens with that. We can insure against delays, but we all know about the opt-outs in the small print and how difficult it is to make claims. We can make baggage claims, but we do not take many bags with us and we all know what the baggage excesses are. What we really pay for is emergency health insurance while we are away.
  Everyone in the country knows what the private health care premiums would be for themselves or their families. We all know that the more infirm people are, the higher the premium they pay. If people have had a serious illness, if they have just come out of hospital or if they are pensioners or disabled, their premiums are higher and the exclusions in the small print are greater. That is the only other real option; it is the American system, and we do not want it here.
  What we want here is a system where people do not have to read the small print first or calculate the excesses and do not have to beware of the opt-outs. From the cradle to the grave, in sickness and in health, I want health professionals to identify the most effective treatment for me, not to calculate the profitability of my life.
  6.28 pm
  Adam Price: I should say at the outset that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) accused me of lacking a spirit of generosity towards the Government. On reading the Hansard report yesterday, my generosity towards the hon. Gentleman was dimmed slightly, possibly by his comments.
  We are pleased to support the Government in this ways and means resolution because we accept the central tenet. As the Wanless report accurately stated, we have had 30 years of underinvestment in the health service in particular, under successive Labour and Conservative Governments. We have some reservations about the means that the Government have used to generate the extra investment, but anyone who is familiar with our public services could not fail to support any measure, however imperfect, that would generate extra investment in those services.
  I listened with great interest to the contribution made by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), which was, as ever, interesting. He very successfully demolished any lingering doubt as to whether this is anything other than a rise in personal taxation. It is clearly

  995
  a tax increase, although perhaps there has been an attempt by those on the Front Bench to mystify things, and perhaps there might be a greater degree of honesty in the attitude to public finances.
  Where I disagree is that I cannot see any correlation between competitiveness and economic success and the level of spending in the public sector. If we consider the index of competitiveness, which Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen have always been keen to use, perhaps until this week, we realise that there is no linear or non-linear correlation between the level of taxation and public expenditure across various countries. There are high-tax, high-public expenditure countries that are economically successful, and, admittedly, there are low-tax economies with low spending in the Government sector, which are also successful. The issue of taxation and expenditure is not principally one of economic efficiency but one of political decision. Society ticks in terms of the relative allocation of resources between personal or family consumption and social or collective consumption. Tax and spend works both ways—it can be personal tax and personal spend.
  We welcome the additional resources going into the national health service. I am the second Welshman to contribute to this debate on national insurance. The predecessor to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies)—Jim Griffiths, who was Minister of National Insurance—came from my home town of Amanford. Of course, we have all dusted down the National Insurance Act 1946 and the National Assistance Act 1948. We should not forget that Lloyd George, another illustrious Welshman, did some of the ground work in 1911.
  As I understand it, the original Act provided for mandatory contributions from employees and employers that were principally aimed at supporting benefits, although a small proportion went into the health service. It was anticipated that the Government would take up the shortfall. We are now in the opposite situation—I am sure that the Government would argue that it is down to their sound management of public finances—in which the national insurance fund has a record surplus of more than £15 billion, according to the latest figures that I have seen. We are now using the national insurance fund to support general Government expenditure. The former Member for Llanelli might have had difficulty with that because it cuts across the contributory principle that lay at the heart of the national insurance system, which was an earmarked social insurance system.
  We have already heard from the right hon. Member for Charnwood that even next year, with around £8 billion raised, only £2.4 billion is going into the national health service. Clearly, that figure will increase in years to come. Even when we are talking about national insurance increases, however, we are not talking about any form of hypothecation. The Treasury Committee is absolutely right to argue that it is wrong to exclude unearned income. If we accept the argument that there is a case for greater contributions through personal taxation, direct taxation is the most socially equitable means of raising those funds. That point was made eloquently last night by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones).
  National insurance is also a tax on a social good—employment. According to the figure from Oxford Economic Forecasting, it may reduce jobs growth by about 100,000 over the next few years. Other economic forecasters may have different views, but that one has
  996
  been echoed by all the main business organisations. Even the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that it had been a most unwelcome surprise—I presume that she included herself in that.
  We support the objective of renewing the public services through extra investment. We would have liked the Chancellor to go further and faster in undoing underinvestment by successive Governments. That is why we may reconsider the issue of exempting the public sector from the employers' contribution. The Government have been very careful to herald the increase in public spending, but they kept a little quieter about the proportion of the money that will be clawed back through the employers' contribution—£1.2 billion a year, as we heard. The employers' contribution will cost the NHS some £26 million a year in Scotland, and some £11 million in Wales.
  If we accept that the central tenet of the Budget is to renew the national health service, it seems curious to use the payroll tax for that purpose. As we know, the national health service is the biggest employer in Europe—apart from the Russian armed forces, I believe—with 1.5 million employees. The payroll tax is therefore probably the last policy tool that should be used to effect an increase in new resources available to the national health service in the short term. Of course, other public sector employers will also be hit badly. Consignia—I presume it is still in the public sector—is losing £1.5 million a day and, I believe, it is coming before the Welsh Affairs Committee. It will have to pay an additional £35 million to £40 million a year on top of that, thereby adding to its financial difficulties. As we have heard, local authorities have particular problems in the care sector, which the Chancellor addressed specifically through the Budget. Because of the revolving door of Government revenue, however, whereby the Chancellor gives with one hand and takes away with the other, local authorities in Scotland are losing about £35 million and those in Wales are losing some £15 million.
  Apart from the clawback, there is also a danger that the employers' contribution will add further to worries about wage inflation in the public sector. The value of the extra money going into the NHS could be lost to inflation. As the King's Fund told the Treasury Committee, 40 per cent. of the extra cash for the NHS could go straight into higher pay and prices. We are aware of the comments of one of the City economists, Michael Sanders of Schroders, that public sector wage inflation is already increasing apace—an average of 4 per cent. compared with 2.3 per cent. across the economy as a whole. That has implications in terms of the Chancellor's stated aim of increasing the NHS budget by 7 per cent. in real terms. If inflation in the public sector is higher owing to wage increases and the fact that the Government are less reliant on cheaper imports, it could eat considerably into the 7 per cent. increase.
  To a certain extent, the pent-up demand in the public sector for wage increases is understandable. For 20 years, public sector employees were treated as the poor relations. Their pay was restricted, their conditions were undermined, and their status was downgraded to a certain extent. It is therefore no surprise that the Government find it difficult to recruit the doctors, teachers, nurses and police needed to staff existing services, let alone the huge increases of 35,000 extra nurses and 30,000 extra therapists that the Secretary of State for Health has talked about.

  997
  The Secretary of State for Health has said that pay is not a something for nothing arrangement. The same applies to recruitment. The only way to recruit that number of people in what is admittedly a tight labour market is to offer serious additional incentives in terms of public sector pay. That, on top of the changes in employees' and employers' national insurance contributions, will make a very difficult environment for the public sector in the next few years. The fear is that the extra spending will be swallowed up by salaries and additional inflation that is unique to the public sector. Therefore, although the increase in investment is necessary, it is insufficient to deal with 30 years of underinvestment in the health service.
  Of course, what is true for the health service is true right across the board for the public sector. Although I do not want to stray into wider territory in terms of the economy, there are widely expressed doubts about the Chancellor's arithmetic in terms of economic growth. The Government's own figures from last week show a 0.1 per cent. increase in the first three months of this year, and that comes on top of a zero increase in the last three months of last year. That clearly suggests that the economy will not meet the Chancellor's growth forecast for this year. If that develops into a wider economic problem, it will impact seriously on the public finances. The Institute for Fiscal Studies and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research have also pointed to the hole, as they see it, in the Government's arithmetic for the public finances even if the Chancellor meets his economic targets.
  Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Adam Price: I may give way to the hon. Gentleman later in this Parliament, and I think that he understands the reasons for that. In any case, I am about to wind up my speech.
  I hope that we will be able to table more detailed amendments when the Bill is before us. Obviously, our natural enthusiasm got the better of us in the amendment that we drafted to the resolution, but there is a legitimate argument for providing an additional cushion and additional stimulus for the public sector by exempting it from the national insurance increases. We look forward to having that debate.
  There has been much talk about the rebirth of old Labour, but I have not been convinced by that talk. We can look back to the past, and the right hon. Member for Llanelli will know the figures because, to quote Max Boyce, "He was there." Between 1974 and 1976, there was a 5 per cent. increase in public expenditure as a proportion of GDP, and that was in the first two years of that Labour Government. We are now in the second term of this Labour Government, and even with the changes announced by the Chancellor, we shall see only a 1 per cent. increase in public expenditure as a proportion of GDP over a five-year term. The figure is even lower than that for the last year of the Government of whom the right hon. Member for Charnwood was a member. Suggestions of the rebirth of old Labour are possibly overstated.
  998
  I hope that these proposals are not the final word but the beginning of a new debate, a new dispensation and a new honesty about the relative balance in the United Kingdom and in the countries of the United Kingdom between private affluence and public welfare.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Mark Hoban: The ways and means resolution before us illustrates the way in which the Government have sold the Budget. They have said that the increase in national insurance contributions will pay for the cost of increased spending in the NHS. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) pointed out so clearly, in the first fiscal year in which the increase in national insurance contributions will affect businesses, the cost of £8 billion will far exceed the amount that will actually be spent on the NHS. It is not surprising that the Chancellor has decided to sell the Budget as a Budget for the health service, because that is a good way of avoiding the message that describes the pain that will be inflicted on public services as well as businesses next year.
  In my borough of Fareham, it is estimated that the cost of the increased national insurance contributions will be £91,000. That is a relatively small figure because it is a small local authority, but it will translate into a 1 or 2 per cent. increase in council tax this time next year. I talked to representatives of the charitable sector earlier this week, and they estimate that the increase in employers' national insurance will cost the sector more than £50 million a year. The cost of more than £200 million has already been cited for the health service and, in an answer given earlier this week, the Department for Education and Skills identified that the additional costs for teachers' salaries will be about £140 million.
  Once those increases are taken into account, it is not surprising that a total cost to the public sector of £1.2 billion will arise from the increase in national insurance contributions. That demonstrates the sheer scale of the increases and the impact that they will have on the provision of public services—about which the Government speak so proudly—and on the improvements in delivery that the Government expect to see.
  One sector that will be particularly affected by the increase in national insurance—it is relevant given the rationale that has been given for the increase—is the care home sector. It has already lost 50,000 beds since 1996–97, and it has been interesting to note reactions to the Budget from people in the sector. Frank Ursell, chief executive officer of the Registered Nursing Home Association, said:
  "For those care home owners who are already teetering on the brink, this tax increase on wages could be the final straw. Many care home owners could say 'I've had enough'".
  Sheila Scott of the National Care Homes Association said:
  "Stealth taxes are killing my members. This tax increase may push some care home owners over the edge".
  Philip Scott, chief executive of Southern Cross, one of Britain's largest nursing home owners, said:
  "We've very quickly done a calculation of what this will do to our payroll costs, and it seems to increase them by about £600,000."
  Many nursing homes are small and have thin margins. Their wage costs account for about 80 per cent. of their total costs, so a I per cent. increase in national insurance

  999
  will reduce their margins by about a fifth. That will push many of them over the edge. We cannot simply accept a decline in the number of nursing home beds.
  Mr. Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how we can improve and increase expenditure on the health service if not through an increase in national insurance contributions? The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said that business should not have to pay more tax and the hon. Gentleman suggests that the public sector will also be heavily hit by the proposal. If the public and private sectors are not willing through their national insurance contributions to pay more tax, where will the money come from? Furthermore—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, and he has already done well enough.
  Mr. Hoban: The hon. Gentleman asks how we are going to fund the increased expenditure. My contention is that the increases in national insurance contributions will make the situation worse, not better. The closure of nursing home beds as a consequence of the increases will lead to more bed blocking and longer waiting lists. The health care changes that the Government suggest will come through will not materialise. This tax increase will be counterproductive. Over the past five years, the increases in health care spending that the Government have announced have not translated into better standards of care.
  A number of my constituents have written to me about podiatry services. In Portsmouth, 10,500—
  Mr. Hendrick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the House is holding a debate on national insurance increases and the Government have put forward their proposals, is it in order for the Opposition not to put forward any proposals? Is that a proper debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate.
  Mr. Hoban: As I was saying, increases in health service spending over the past five years have not been translated into improvements in the quality of service offered to people in my constituency. Some 10,500 pensioners in the Portsmouth area now no longer receive podiatry services despite all the Government's promises of better standards and more care. The case is yet to be demonstrated.
  John Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hoban: I will not give way, because I am conscious that other colleagues wish to speak.
  Previous promises of increased expenditure have not led to improved services. Without fundamental change in the NHS, the tax increases in the Budget and the increases in national insurance contributions will not translate into better health care. The Government have shown an unwillingness to adopt fully a programme of change and reform in the NHS that would lead to improvements in the delivery of health care. I fear that businesses, the public sector and care homes—indeed, a host of affected interests
  1000
  across the country—will suffer pains as a consequence of increased national insurance contributions. I cannot envisage the NHS gaining from that unless there is real change in the provision of health care.
  6.50 pm
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: We have heard that the increase in national insurance levied in the Budget will be used to fund the national health service, so it is on that that I shall focus. Although I am mindful of the comment that only a proportion of that take will be spent on the NHS, it is important to explain that the NHS is not just about cash. I regret the remarks made by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), who seemed to suggest that the NHS started in 1997, so nullifying everything that went before. I trained in the NHS in the early 1980s and have worked in it. I regret such remarks, which will reflect poorly on the hon. Gentleman when they appear in Hansard tomorrow.
  The Chancellor should not fall into the trap that because he has turned on the taps, the NHS is going to blossom like the desert after the rains have come. Recent experience suggests that that will not be the case. The Science and Technology Committee, of which I am a member, found that the £570 million that was pledged as part of the NHS cancer plan ran into the sand. Professor Gordon McVie, director general of the Cancer Research Fund, told us:
  "I think there is still some mystery about where some of the money is and whether the cheque got lost in the post or whether it has been absorbed like creosote into the fence post of the administration of the health service."
  That is quite damning. Notwithstanding the Government's commission to audit and check that money is being spent as it should be, we need structural change to ensure that that is not required. We do not want Parliament to get another damning report suggesting that money has run into the post like creosote. However, as there is no evidence of structural change, we are concerned that the money will not be well spent and will not be focused on what really matters. It is not just a case of spending money on the NHS or health services broadly defined. I believe that our constituents want to see the outcomes of health care policy.
  The Government's stance on alternative funding has hardened in recent months since the Chancellor asked Mr. Wanless to craft his report. The Wanless report cannot be seen as independent or even objective, but even it admits:
  "The degree of individual choice tends to be relatively limited under tax financing … in a world where patient expectations are rising rapidly and people are increasingly looking for health services which offer greater personal choice in non-clinical services, it may not be acceptable or equitable to meet all of these additional demands through public financing."
  Acceptable and equitable are important terms indeed.
  I do not know whether our system, funded overwhelmingly through general taxation, can sustain us, and I am prepared to examine other models. We have to accept that our system is unique and we have got it either very right or very wrong. Either way, we have to be prepared to countenance other models of health service funding. We should compare a system based on rationing that will always be driven by available resources—the United Kingdom is the exemplar of that—with

  1001
  demand-led systems elsewhere that focus on cost containment. It is a great shame that the Chancellor has put his faith exclusively in the former.
  John Mann: Does the hon. Gentleman rule in or rule out the scheme in the United States?
  Dr. Murrison: Hon. Members have repeatedly said that no one on either side of the House is interested in the American system. For myself, as a humble Back Bencher, I do not think that the system works particularly well in the United States and it certainly would not work well here. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman, for the last time, the answer that he seeks.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: He does not want to believe it.
  Dr. Murrison: I fear my hon. Friend is correct.
  John Mann: What alternative does the hon. Gentleman propose?
  Dr. Murrison: If I can crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall have to labour the point. I do not know how we should best fund health in this country, but I am prepared to examine alternatives. Rather like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen, the Chancellor has closed his mind without first examining the evidence. I hope that the Opposition continue to examine what is best for the British public so that we get the very best health outcomes. That is the important consideration, not institutions. I say that as someone who worked in the NHS and has every respect for it and its staff. Frankly, my constituents would consider surrendering the nine-minute average GP slot that they get under the current system for 20 minutes in the not-for-profit Californian system run by Kaiser Permanente.
  The recent Treasury Committee Budget report makes the pertinent observation:
  "The proposed increases in NICs for employees and the self-employed will deliver a tax increase to those groups that is very similar to a 1 per cent. increase in the rates of income tax. However, unlike increases in income tax, increases in NICs will not affect pensioners and those living off unearned income, who benefit from the insurance provided by the National Health Service, and may be in a position to make a contribution. We think that the Treasury has, as yet, failed to make the case for choosing a method of revenue raising (higher employer and employee national insurance contributions) which excludes well-off pensioners and people living comfortably off unearned income from making a contribution to higher NHS spending."
  The House should bear it in mind that that is an influential. Labour-dominated Committee.
  The public policy campaign group, Reform, listed a series of concerns that it has about the NHS. It points out that the Department of Health estimates that 16 to 20 per cent. of the NHS budget is lost as a result of poor management, fraud, blocked beds, hospital-related infections and other aspects of mismanagement. We need to address that urgently. We know that Scotland spends the EU average on health care, yet public health figures tell us that it enjoys among the worst health care in Europe. In other words, it is not just about money; it is what we do with it. The tax cost of the NHS to the average
  1002
  family has more than doubled in 10 years, but is that reflected in the improvements in their health care? Probably not.
  As an aside, as someone who worked in the NHS and who has viewed health care with interest for most of my adult life, most of the extremely positive advances in the past 50 years have not been due to the number of the doctors on which the Government are so fixated. It pains me to say that. I am a doctor and I would love to be able to tell the House that the problems could be solved by recruiting more doctors. Sadly, that is not case. It is far more complicated than that.
  The Adam Smith Institute estimates that only 17 per cent. of any new resources for the NHS end up in front-line services, which bears out the findings of the Science and Technology Committee. The Secretary of State for Health described the NHS as
  "the last great nationalised industry".
  The Institute of Directors points out that Government policy remains set on sending
  "more men over the top"
  instead of opening up new fronts. The Institute of Directors represents many small and medium-sized organisations. We need to pay due credence to what it says because they generate the wealth that, at the end of the day, funds the public services that we all want.
  Let me conclude by citing two of the most prominent medical men in the country. The chairman of the British Medical Association recently said:
  "the NHS in its current state cannot survive without radical change".
  The president of the Royal College of Surgeons recently stated:
  "things are in such a mess, much worse than I would have imagined possible … the NHS is in a desperate state."
  6.59 pm
  Chris Grayling: May I begin by apologising to the Chair and to Members on both Front Benches for missing the start of the debate? I was at a sitting of the Transport Sub-Committee; clearly, I view attendance at Select Committees as particularly important, especially this week.
  I feel strongly that the increase in employers' national insurance contributions introduced in the Budget is foolhardy and will damage a wide range of organisations. It is worth thinking back to the comments made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago, when he said that a small adjustment downwards in employers' contributions was an employment-creating measure. By definition, his decision to increase employers' contributions this year must be an employment-damaging measure; the two facts inevitably go together.
  The impact will be felt, first and foremost, in business. I know that the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) has argued that the public sector will be the problem, and I will go on to reinforce many of his comments, but it is not only the public sector that will be affected. As a result of this change, small businesses throughout this country, particularly in manufacturing, which has suffered as a result of adverse exchange rates in the past few years, will take on costs that they can ill afford.

  1003
  Yesterday, at Scotland Office questions, I pointed out that employment in manufacturing in Scotland has fallen to a historically low level, yet the Budget will take £50 million out of Scottish manufacturing companies. That cannot happen without it having an adverse effect on employment. I do not know the comparable figures for Wales—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me—but I am certain that the Budget will also lead to a loss of tens of millions of pounds for manufacturing companies in Wales and other parts of the country, which they can ill afford at this time.
  It is easy for Ministers to talk about small amounts for individual companies. It is true that a small service firm with a turnover of £500,000 a year will end up spending £3,000 or £4,000 a year extra as a result of the measure, but where does that money come from? In most small companies, costs are fixed: salaries have to be paid, the rates have to be paid and the bills for heat and light have to be paid. There is relatively little discretionary spending in any company's budget, and when adjustments have to be made the money comes from such sources as sales and marketing, the training budget or the investment budget—perhaps the company will buy fewer computers that year. No small business can afford to give up those things.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is no longer in his place. He mentioned profitability. Whatever the Government have done for profitability, many of our growth companies do not make a profit in their first few years, but they still employ people and so carry the costs of employment. Those businesses in particular will suffer as a result of the change.
  The measure will also have a huge impact on our biggest companies, such as Nissan in the north-east, which has been struggling to deal with the high exchange rate and is a substantial employer. For Nissan, being in business in this country is now less viable. The same is true of Corns, which has been forced to make cuts in south Wales, which we all regret. How many more jobs with Corus will be lost as a result of the Budget?
  The truth is that businesses both big and small will suffer, but there will be an equally huge impact on our public services, and I want to say a little about how the measure will affect our education system. In the past few days, I have been finding out in a series of written answers exactly what the impact on schools and colleges will be. Can Ministers assure the House that local authorities will be fully funded so that they can address the shortfalls that schools will face as a result of the higher employers' contributions?
  Some of the figures that I have been given are frightening. I asked the Department for Education and Skills about the total amount of national insurance contributions paid, directly and indirectly, through its budget. Using the available data, it said, it estimates that the cost of contributions paid by the Department in this financial year will be £3 billion. That means that, next year, with a 10 per cent. increase in the national insurance rate, approximately £300 million extra in employers' contributions will have to be found. That money will come out of education budgets.
  If we could be certain that the schools and colleges that will have to pay those bills would be refunded, we might
  1004
  be reassured, but a further written answer about colleges gave me further cause for anxiety. It said:
  "The additional cost in employers' national insurance contributions in 2003–04 for all English colleges (including sixth form colleges) providing further education is estimated to be about £25 million. This cost will be considered alongside other priorities and pressures in the 2002 spending review."—[Official Report, 29 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 572W.]
  So there are no guarantees that those funds will not come straight off the bottom line. I suspect that a cost of £25 million spread across all colleges may equate to the cost of a teaching post in each one.
  I have figures for primary and secondary schools. The cost of the increase in contributions will be £20,000 for the average secondary school, which is about the same as the cost of a teaching post for a new graduate. The cost will be £4,000 for the average primary school, which is more than most of them have to spend on books and equipment every year. Will that money be refunded to schools through next year's education settlement, or will they find that it has been cheese-pared away and that local authorities have been underfunded for next year's pay settlements? Even Ofsted does not escape. I have a letter from the chief inspector, who says:
  "I estimate that the additional cost in 2003–04 will be about £½ million."
  That is £500,000 that will not be available to fund school inspections.
  There is no logic whatever in taxing our schools and colleges to pay for the NHS, or indeed, as hon. Members have said, in taxing the NHS to pay for the NHS. The Government are taxing hospitals, primary care trusts, social services and, outside the public sector but equally importantly, care homes. The flaw in the amendment to which the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr put his name is that it does not mention care homes. They are privately owned but they depend on a small cadre of staff who are dedicated but not highly paid. They are businesses that often operate close to the margin. They will have to fund this extra tax, and they may well be unable to afford it.
  Throughout the country, small and large businesses and, in the public sector, the health service, our schools and colleges, our police forces and our councils will pay extra. It is far from clear that they will all get their money back and that services will not suffer as a result. The measure is ill-thought-out, and it will do far more harm than good. It is far from clear that it will deliver improvements to the health service of the kind that are undoubtedly needed. It is a bad measure and it should he opposed by the House.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I, too, must apologise to the House for being slightly late.
  I want to begin where I left off in my intervention on the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), in which I spoke of the effect that the increase in national insurance will have in areas such as mine that have been affected by last year's foot and mouth epidemic. Rural economies are fragile at the best of times; they have very little meat on their bones to keep themselves going. Last year, we saw the meat on those bones devastated in entire constituencies.

  1005
  We lost all our tourist trade. Tourism is now trying to bring itself back from the brink. Last year, business was down by 80 per cent., and those companies depend totally on part-time rural labour. The problem in tourism now is that people are beginning to say to their banks, "I can see my way out of this." They hope that they can trade their way out of the problems. This national insurance increase will make that much more difficult. These companies have very little to play with, and they have made budget predictions, not only for this year but for a couple of years, which will now be wrong, and, as we well know, banks are somewhat less than forgiving.
  What about farming itself? The industry has gone through a massive change in the past five years. It has cut the number of people employed on the land, and the problem now is that it will have to make further cuts. The average income for a farmer is £5,000. If a farmer employs somebody, he will lose 1 per cent. of that person's wage in national insurance. That is yet another increase that farmers and rural businesses can ill afford. There is no way out for farmers—they have to be on the land, working the land. Are we seriously suggesting that, despite the working time directive, farmers will now have to work 24 hours a day because they can ill afford to employ people to help when they need it most?
  What about small businesses in seaside towns? I was talking to a company that supplies slot machines. It has a problem because business is cyclical, so it shuts for six months of the year. It takes on part-time workers and, after the six months of work, it gets rid of them again. With an increase in national insurance, any business that is cyclical and totally dependent on one sector of the community will find it very difficult to expand.
  I wonder whether the Government are aware that over the past few years there have been £6 billion a year of extra taxes and £5 billion a year of extra red tape. In my constituency, we have Butlins, which has 9,000 guests a week. It employs 750 people who are all local part-time workers. Butlins will be affected by the increase, because red tape is a disaster for such a business. People will go overseas on holiday. That is what Butlins is competing with. The market is large and aggressive, and it is fickle, depending on what the pound does that year or at the time.
  I also have a tea company in my constituency. It obviously relies on imports from around the world to blend and make tea. It is a tiny company that has done very well. I am trying to get its products into this honourable place. The increase will affect such a company in the long term. The company will find it more and more difficult to get the sort of people that it wants, because of the overhead costs. A tea blender or a tea taster is a professional person, not just someone who can be picked off the streets and trained. We would not be very happy downstairs if that were the case.
  Productivity growth has slowed under this Government and is faster in the United States. Royal Ordnance plc in my constituency is looking to move production to America, because its overheads make it uncompetitive in this country. Its parent company, BAE Systems, is looking to move Royal Ordnance overseas because it is not economic. Its production in this country does not make the money that is required.
  1006
  I recently introduced the Patents Act 1977 (Amendment) Bill. In that connection, I was intrigued by the fact that Mr. Dyson is moving his production overseas because of the increased cost of his work force in this country. The reason for introducing the Bill was to protect people such as him. As a result of the increases in taxation, they will now go offshore—in Mr. Dyson's case, I believe, to Malaya.
  Whether or not a company is making a profit, it still has to pay national insurance contributions, so companies that have been affected over the past year by circumstances beyond their control are still being charged NICs, which cannot be healthy.
  Another aspect of the problem is the cost to local authorities. For instance, West Somerset district council has a budget of only £4 million. The increase will make a substantial difference to the local services that it can provide. Somerset county, which is Liberal Democrat-controlled, increased its provision by 12.9 per cent. That will cost more this year because of the rise. Over the past few years Somerset has lost 248 care beds, and will lose more. Somerset county cannot afford to pay the money necessary to keep the beds going. Greater pressure will be put on county and district councils because of the increases in taxation and red tape.
  I do not believe for one minute that the Government have thought through the implications of the measure. Areas such as Somerset can least afford it. It will result in a substantial lack of investment in long-term help for the elderly and in care homes. If we continue to shut care homes at the present rate, bed blocking will become even more prevalent.
  We have three cottage hospitals. The pooling of resources could mean that those hospitals will come under threat. With the loss of care home places, people will end up being bed blocked because there is nowhere else to put them. The local hospitals that provide some relief to doctors and to larger hospitals will have gone. That is the depth and width of the problem that we face.
  Raising taxes penalises people in rural areas who can least afford it. Companies such as Nissan have been mentioned. Those have a better chance, but the Government cannot take away what we have not got. Many people in rural areas will go out of business because they cannot afford to continue.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: The debate has been fascinating. It was about the £8 billion increase in tax and the Government's litany of broken promises:
  "We've got no plans at all to raise that ceiling on National Insurance Contributions—it is not going to happen."
  That is what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said to the "Powerhouse" programme on 29 May 2001 during the general election campaign. The Government have broken their promise to the electorate about employees' national insurance and abandoned their own words about employers' national insurance.
  On 6 October 1999, the Government responded to the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry dated 19 July 1999. In paragraph (i) of their response they stated:
  "The climate change levy and the associated reduction in employers National Insurance Contributions represents a shift in the burden of taxation from 'goods' such as labour to 'bads' such as

  1007
  environmental pollution. The reduction in NI contributions will reduce the cost of labour and thereby encourage employment opportunities throughout the economy."
  During the debate the Government have turned those words on their head. If it is true that reducing national insurance contributions will reduce the cost of labour and encourage employment opportunities, then it must be true that increasing national insurance contributions will increase the cost of labour and reduce employment opportunities. That is the charge that the Government must answer.
  The speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) demonstrated that they are extremely sceptical about whether the £8 billion that is to be raised will generate improvements in the health service. They are also gravely concerned about the impact of the additional impost on employers in their constituency, including the public sector.
  The point was made earlier that the Government are raising £300 million in additional tax from local authorities. At the time of the Budget, the Government made much of the fact that they would give £300 million to local authorities to help them with the burdens of social services. What the Government give with one hand they take away with the other.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood made an incisive and hard-hitting speech. He spoke of the burden on business and showed that the United Kingdom is increasing tax at a time when our competitors are cutting tax. He drew attention to the fact that of the £8 billion, only £2.4 billion is earmarked to go to the NHS, and he asked what will happen to the other £5.6 billion. My right hon. Friend's most devastating critique was on the issue of conditionality. There are no strings attached to the way in which the money is to be spent.
  I can tell the House that I do not have a closed mind. I have an open mind. Last night I attended a fascinating lecture by a Swedish expert on health care. He illustrated how it is possible to have better health care without having to increase tax. He said that in 1991 the funding system in Stockholm was changed to one based on outputs. As a result, health service output increased by 19 per cent. He said that St. George's hospital and other hospitals in Stockholm became independent boards in 1994, thereby generating 40 per cent. extra productivity. In 1999, St. George's hospital in Stockholm was sold to the private sector, producing a reduction in costs of between 10 and 15 per cent. If health care can be improved in Sweden without taxing, spending and wasting, we can do it in this country as well, given the will.
  The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) repeated that the people of this country are not taxed highly enough. All I can say is that he is totally out of touch with the reality on the ground. Five years ago today I was elected in Christchurch to succeed a Liberal Democrat who had failed the people of Christchurch. I am proud that this is my fifth anniversary of representing that constituency.
  What we want is an end to this tax, spend and waste, and a genuine reform of the NHS. That is why we will vote against the resolution.
  7.19 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) should pray in aid Sweden. I suggest that he look at its tax rates before he goes any further.
  I begin with the issue raised about business and its response to the national insurance proposals. Anthony Goldstone, president of the British Chambers of Commerce, said:
  "Now any of us in business know that we get what we pay for. If we want a world class health service in the UK we need to pay more. The advance of medical science, new treatments and more advanced drugs means costs are increasing. The question is not whether we need to pay more, but how."
  He went on to say that it is also crucial that business recognises the importance of having a health service that is capable of treating and maintaining a healthy work force.
  I say to the many hon. Members who have contributed that employers have a strong interest in a healthy labour supply. The CBI has estimated that workplace absence costs British business more than £10 billion a year. Even after the 1 per cent. increase in employers' national insurance, employers in the UK will be paying less than those in France and Germany towards their employees' health needs. The benefits to business of a better NHS are clear, and it is right that it should bear some of the costs.
  Britain is a good place to be an employer. UK inflation is the lowest in Europe and the UK is rated by the OECD as having the lowest barriers to entrepreneurship of any major economy. The Budget went further in assisting that. Indeed, yesterday's report by the Institute of Management Development says that the UK has the most resilient economy, ahead of those of the United States and Germany, the largest direct investors abroad and the third largest inward investment. It goes on to say:
  "The United Kingdom has better withstood the uncertainties of the global economy."
  The economy is strong, but on any proposal that the Government make, Opposition Members constantly claim that jobs will be lost. They did so on the national minimum wage and on every other proposal that we have made.
  Let me turn briefly to the points made about how the national insurance fund will operate and what will happen to the revenue. The increase in national insurance contributions is specifically aimed at funding Government spending on the national health service while taking into account other spending priorities, and it needs to meet the strict fiscal rules. The increase in national insurance is to be seen in the context of the five-year pledge on health spending and the Government's fiscal rules and priorities in other places. The proportion of the contributions that is currently allocated to the national health service will be increased by the amount of the increase in national insurance, in exactly the way to which the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) referred.
  There was a further question about the need for primary legislation with regard to the 1 per cent. level varying on national insurance above the upper earnings limit. I can confirm that primary legislation would be required if there was to be any variation above that upper limit.
  I turn now to the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and his various boasts. The Conservative Government increased national insurance many times,

  1009
  but especially in April 1994, when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I looked at his speech on the Budget at that time. Some £10 billion of cuts were made in public expenditure, and he bragged that growth in public expenditure would be less than 1 per cent. He went on, with his Government, to increase national insurance, in contrast with what Lord Howe of Aberavon did, which was mentioned last night; his Budget cut public expenditure by £4 billion, raised VAT to 15 per cent, and froze child benefit and the real value of pensions.
  It was 56 years ago yesterday that the National Health Service Bill was discussed in the House. I looked at the comments that Conservative Members made at that time and found that they were the same old Tories. They said that they were in favour of health, but not of the national health service; they were in favour of developments, but not keen to give the money. They were in favour of those things without saying what their policies were. In this debate, they have continued in exactly the same way to argue that they like the health service, but they are not prepared to say how they would pay for it. We know that their aims are the same now as on 30 April 1946. They want to break up the national health service, just as they did in 1979. They want to cut public expenditure, just as the right hon. Member for Charnwood did when he was Financial Secretary.
  The motion provides the vehicle for discussion of the national insurance Bill and I commend it to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 137.

  Division No. 224]

  [7.26 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brennan, Kevin

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Burnett, John

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bumham, Andy

  Austin, John

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Banks, Tony

  Cairns, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Barrett, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Battle, John

  Caton, Martin

  Beard, Nigel

  Chaytor, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands

  Beggs, Roy

  Bell, Stuart

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Benn, Hilary

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Benton, Joe

  Clelland, David

  Berry, Roger

  Coaker, Vernon

  Best, Harold

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blackman, Liz

  Colman, Tony

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Connarty, Michael

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Borrow, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Corston, Jean

  Breed, Colin

  Cotter, Brian

  1010

  Cox, Tom

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cranston, Ross

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hurst, Alan

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Cummings, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  David, Wayne

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Joyce, Eric

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Doran, Frank

  Keetch, Paul

  Doughty, Sue

  Kelly, Ruth

  Dowd, Jim

  Kemp, Fraser

  Drew, David

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Edwards, Huw

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Efford, Clive

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lamb, Norman

  Etherington, Bill

  Lammy, David

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Laws, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Fisher, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flynn, Paul

  Levitt, Tom

  Follett, Barbara

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Linton, Martin

  Foulkes, George

  Lloyd, Tony

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Galloway, George

  Lucas, Ian

  Gapes, Mike

  Luke, Iain

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lyons, John

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCafferty, Chris

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gidley, Sandra

  McDonnell, John

  Goggins, Paul

  MacDougall, John

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKechin, Ann

  Grogan, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hancock, Mike

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hanson, David

  Mann, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Harvey, Nick

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Havard, Dai

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Healey, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Heath, David

  Meale, Alan

  Hendrick, Mark

  Merron, Gillian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Heppell, John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hermon, Lady

  Miliband, David

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Miller, Andrew

  Hill, Keith

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoey, Kate

  Mole, Chris

  Holmes, Paul

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Moore, Michael

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Morgan, Julie

  Hope, Phil

  Morley, Elliot

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  1011

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Norris, Dan

  Soley, Clive

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Southworth, Helen

  O'Hara, Edward

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Olner, Bill

  Squire, Rachel

  Öpik, Lembit

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Organ, Diana

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Owen, Albert

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pearson, Ian

  Stringer, Graham

  Perham, Linda

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Picking, Anne

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tami, Mark

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pond, Chris

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, Dr Richard Wyre F

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Thurso, John

  Price, Adam

  Timms, Stephen

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Todd, Mark

  Pumell, James

  Touhig, Don

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Trickett, Jon

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rapson, Syd

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Tynan, Bill

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rendel, David

  Watts, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Webb, Steve

  Weir, Michael

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, Ernie

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Willis, Phil

  Salmond, Alex

  Winnick, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wishart, Pete

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Woodward, Shaun

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Sawford, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wray, James

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Simon, Siôn

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. Ivor Caplin and

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mrs. Anne McGuire.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Amess, David

  Cash, William

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Chope, Christopher

  Bacon, Richard

  Clappison, James

  Barker, Gregory

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Baron, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bercow, John

  Conway, Derek

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cran, James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Boswell, Tim

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Brady, Graham

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Brazier, Julian

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Burns, Simon

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Burnside, David

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

  Butterfill, John

  Evans, Nigel

  1012

  Fabricant, Michael

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Flight, Howard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Flook, Adrian

  Page, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paice, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Paterson, Owen

  Francois, Mark

  Pickles, Eric

  Gale, Roger

  Prisk, Mark

  Gibb, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gray, James

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Grayling, Chris

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Greenway, John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Ruffley, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hayes, John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hoban, Mark

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Horam, John

  Spink, Bob

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spring, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Steen Anthony

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Streeter, Gary

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Swayne, Desmond

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Swire, Hugo

  Key, Robert

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tredinnick, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Letwin, Oliver

  Viggers, Peter

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Walter, Robert

  Liddell—Grainger, Ian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Watkinson, Angela

  Loughton, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Luff, Peter

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Wiggin, Bill

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Willetts, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Maples, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Mates, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mercer, Patrick

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Mr. Charles Hendry.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made for, and in connection with, increasing national insurance contributions and for applying the increases towards the cost of the National Health Service.
  Bill ordered to brought in upon the foregoing resolution: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Milburn, Mr. Andrew Smith, Mr. Paul Boateng, Ruth Kelly and Dawn Primarolo do prepare and bring it in.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS
    NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL
    Dawn Primarolo accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, increasing national insurance contributions and for applying the increases towards the cost of the national health service: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed.

Draft Communications Bill (Joint Committee)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Lords Message of 29th April relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any draft Communications Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown be now considered.
That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution relating to the said Joint Committee.
That a Select Committee of six honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider any such draft Communications Bill.
That the Committee shall have power—

(i) to send for persons, papers and records;

(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii) to report from time to time;

(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;

(v)to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and

That Paul Farrelly, Mr. John Grogan, Nick Harvey, Mr. Andrew Lansley, Anne Picking and Brian White be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Stringer.]
7.41 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: This measure appears to be straightforward enough, but underneath it lie a number of difficulties. I want to say straight away that we very much support the concept of pre-legislative scrutiny, and that we want to encourage much more of it. We recognise its value, and we are rather pleased that, however belatedly, this example is coming before us. We also support the concept of a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, because, at its best, it will combine the expertise and impartiality of their lordships with the legitimate, political, representative nature of this House. Provided that we can get the blend of the membership correct, I have no doubt that Joint Committees of this kind can make a valuable contribution to parliamentary scrutiny. That is as it should be.
The problem arises, however, in the composition of the Committees. The difficulties present themselves from a number of directions. The first relates to settling the overall size of the Committee, although it is well established that there should properly be parity of representation of the two Houses of Parliament. That is a legitimate recognition of the different contributions that the two Houses can make, and there should be no controversy over that issue.
Difficulties arise, however, when we consider the composition of the two Houses, and the overall composition of the Houses, in an effort to determine the composition of the Joint Committee. That is because the political composition of the two Houses is quite different, although I do not see anything wrong with that. At present, the Government—one party—have a substantial majority in the House of Commons, and it is proper that that should be recognised in the make-up of the Joint Committee.
The composition of the upper House presents a rather different picture, however. We should recognise that it is the creation of the present Government, in that they have changed its composition and introduced what they like to characterise as a transitional or temporary arrangement—
1014
albeit one that seems to be going on for an unconscionably long time. This House, Parliament as a whole and the Government have to deal with the numbers as they are, not as they would like them to be or as they imagine they will be in future. We are therefore faced with the difficult challenge of how to arrive at a composition of a Joint Committee that will give proper recognition to the differing compositions of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons.
In our view, the resolution does not adequately meet that challenge. We have considerable difficulty with the proposed membership of the Committee from this House, which comprises four representatives from the Labour party, one from Her Majesty's official Opposition, and one from the Liberal Democrats. It seems rather odd that my party, which proudly has some 160 Members in this House, should have parity of representation with a minor party that has only 50-odd Members.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: If having 166 Members out of 659 makes the right hon. Gentleman proud, what would make him ashamed?
Mr. Forth: I would never characterise the right hon. Gentleman as being too clever by half, but what I meant to say—I regret it if I failed to convince him of this—was that the contribution that my party of 160-something Members makes is one in which I take great pride. Nevertheless, to have only one member of Her Majesty's official Opposition, which has 160 or so members, on the Committee is neither proper nor adequate. That is at the core of our argument.
There is a need for much further consideration of the composition of such Joint Committees, and it will have to embrace their overall size, the differing representation from the two Houses of Parliament, and the proper representation across the political spectrum of the various parties and interests. I say that because there is—very properly—a large group of Cross Benchers in another place that must never be taken for granted or ignored. It must have proper representation on Joint Committees, given the enormous contribution that Cross Benchers from another place can make. That is a very real issue.
The official Opposition are prepared, on this occasion, to accept the resolution in its present form for the sake of making progress, because we are anxious to proceed with this matter. I also want to make it clear, however, that we are very dissatisfied with the proposed composition of the Committee. I hope that the Leader of the House—if he is replying to this brief debate—will make it clear that, although he welcomes my offer to allow the measure to proceed, this must not be regarded as a precedent, and that, in the Government's view, it is legitimate that we should look at these issues again and arrive at a proper dispensation.
There is another issue which, although it is, perhaps, of secondary importance, must not be ignored; that is, whether we can expect to see Front Benchers or spokesmen from the different parties represented on such Committees. It is not evident at present whether that is the intention. I do not want to prejudge the matter, but I want to flag it up as another issue that needs to be dealt with. The House will realise that, for our part, the names on the resolution reflect the fact that we have chosen to put a very distinguished and experienced Member—

1015
currently a Back Bencher—on the Committee, who I believe will make a positive contribution to its deliberations. All I will say at this stage is that that is not the case for all the parties.
We should look carefully and deliberatively at how we see these pre-legislative Joint Committees operating, what we expect of them and what their role will be. We should then fit all that together in terms of the relative representation of the two Houses of Parliament—reflecting not only their separate composition but their aggregate composition—in the hope that we can arrive at a solution that will properly reflect the will of the electorate, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, and the proper balance of the parties and Cross Benchers in the other place.
I make these points not in any spirit of difficulty or obstruction—tempting though that always is, in my case—but in a genuine attempt to allow this particular measure to proceed now. I hope, however, that the Leader of the House will be able to help me—as I have persuaded my colleagues that they should allow this matter to proceed today—by indicating his clear recognition that this does not set a precedent to which reference can be made in future, and that we will have proper further consideration to resolve the matters that I have raised. In that spirit, I hope that we will be able to allow the matter to proceed.
7.50 pm
Pete Wishart: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to put on record our concerns about this resolution. I shall not detain the House, as I know that English Members have other places to go this evening—I understand that there is an election or something tomorrow.
The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru had no intention of opposing the resolution when it appeared on the Order Paper last night, and we have no intention of opposing it this evening. However, we are concerned that we were not properly informed and consulted about the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, so had no opportunity to put forward a case for minority party participation on a key Bill that is important to all the nations of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, just as the official spokesman for the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), has expressed concern about the composition of the new Joint Committee, we who represent the majority community in Northern Ireland are concerned that, like other minority parties, we are excluded and cannot participate in it? The Committee should be so composed that minority parties are directly represented.
Pete Wishart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. The list of hon. Members from this House who have been proposed to serve on the Joint Committee contains no Members from Northern Ireland or from Wales, which is shocking.
The Leader of the House has stated that he intends increasingly to use Joint Committees in the future. I urge him and the Government to consider how such Committees can best be constructed to reflect all the interests and opinions in the House.
1016
We appreciate that we are the minority parties in the House on basic arithmetic. However, the minority parties represent the opposition parties of Wales and Scotland and, as the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) has said, the governing party of Northern Ireland. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with me that we have an important and democratic part to play in the House's proceedings, and I hope that that will be reflected in the future composition of such Committees.
7.52 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): There is a lot in what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said on which we can find common cause. I welcome his support for our commitment to enhance and increase the opportunities for pre-legislative scrutiny. I am convinced that that will give the House a better chance to influence the shape of public Bills, and will ensure that when Bills come before us officially they will be in better order and better shape.
I also welcome the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance that that is best done through a Joint Committee. We gave an assurance some months ago that we would consider the draft Communications Bill in a Committee of both Houses, drawing on the expertise and interest in both Houses. I also welcome his acceptance that we need to make progress on this matter, and to get the Joint Committee under way soon, so that it can report in time to have a Bill ready to go when we meet for the next Session.
If the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for saying so, I warmly welcome the support he gave in his speech for the principle of proportionality. I look forward to his commitment to proportional representation at the future debate. [Interruption.] I am sorry that I have not entirely carried the right hon. Gentleman with me on that point.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No; I want to make progress, because I am trying to be helpful.
I believe that we can learn some lessons from the exchanges we have had over the past few days. It might be helpful if I were to say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the minority parties that we will not regard agreement to the resolution before the House tonight as a precedent for future Joint Committees. We have sought to construct a Committee of modest size, with a total of 12 members, because we wanted it to be able to carry out a thorough examination with a relatively discreet number. However, that poses problems in reflecting the balance in either House. A total of six members from this Chamber necessarily limits the extent to which the result can be fully proportional. On future occasions, we may aim for a larger Committee, conceivably one so large that minority parties will be able to claim a place on it as of right, although that would require a Committee of some 20 members.
I am happy to take those points on board for future consideration. I hope that that will enable the House to proceed with the resolution tonight, given my assurance that it will not be taken as a precedent. I will not take down and use this occasion as evidence in the future.

1017
I hope that next time we will be able to provide for a Committee with a larger number of members, which will allow for greater flexibility.
I cannot promise that I will always be able to respond to the wish of every party in the House to have more members on every Committee we set up, but I hope that next time we will have learned lessons and will produce a more consensual proposal.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Lords Message of 29th April relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any draft Communications Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown be now considered.
That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution relating to the said Joint Committee.
That a Select Committee of six honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider any such draft Communications Bill,
That the Committee shall have power—

(i) to send for persons, papers and records;

(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii) to report from time to time;

(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;

(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and

That Paul Family, Mr. John Grogan, Nick Harvey, Mr. Andrew Lansley, Anne Picking and Brian White be members of the Committee.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION
Ordered,
That Mr. John McFall and Mr. George Osborne be appointed members of the Public Accounts Commission under section 2(2)(c) of the National Audit Act 1983.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Ridgeway
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
7.55 pm
Mr. Robert Jackson: In my maiden speech in this Chamber in 1983, I waxed lyrical about the primeval monuments that distinguish my constituency, including the white horse, dating back to 1,000 years before Christ, and the bronze age barrows dating back 2,000 years before that. I am afraid that I omitted to mention the even older feature that links all those monuments together: the Ridgeway. Tonight, I hope to make up for that omission.
The Ridgeway, stretching along 85 miles from Overton Hill in Wiltshire to Ivinghoe Beacon in Buckinghamshire, is England's oldest green road. It dates back to the earliest days of agriculture and inter-regional trade in this country, 6,000 years ago. It is an historical feature of European importance, and because of its upland location it is, or rather it ought to be, a site of great natural beauty.
I say ought to be, because the Ridgeway is being subjected to such abuse and progressive degradation that, although the distant views from it may be splendid, those who walk it or ride along it are dismayed at every turn. The present unhappy state of the Ridgeway, to which I am drawing the House's attention, has come about as a result of a combination of many different factors, the most fundamental of which is the growth in the number and variety of motor vehicles. That has exposed this ancient highway to a host of new pressures. Alongside that is a failure of public regulation, which has not kept up with this automotive explosion, and has not mitigated and managed its impact.
I shall begin with the growth of motor traffic on the Ridgeway. I particularly want the Minister to realise that it is certain that growing affluence and the multiplication of automotive technologies will go on throwing up new ways of abusing the Ridgeway, and of expanding and intensifying the scale of the pressures that we have already experienced. For instance, over the past decade there has been a 400 per cent. increase nationally in the number of off-road motor bikes and 4x4 motor cars, which has brought with it a corresponding increase in the use of the Ridgeway by such vehicles.
The consequences of that problem immediately hit the eye when one walks the Ridgeway at any time of the year, as my wife and I do frequently. Those vehicles destroy the surface of the trail. In wet weather, huge sections of it become a sea of mud and deep puddles. In dry weather, the surface sets into a series of ankle-twisting, knee-wrenching ruts. The impact is not only visual: there is also the noise, especially the buzzing from the motorbikes, and the pollution that those vehicles cause. This is a matter of great concern in my constituency and in those of my colleagues who are present for this debate.
Those are not the only abuses that arise from the openness of the Ridgeway to motor traffic. Because of its easy accessibility, the Ridgeway is the scene of all-night raves, with large numbers of vehicles driving along it to party sites. It is used by so-called travellers, who set up their camps and leave behind them piles of rubbish when they are moved along by the authorities. There is also more and more fly tipping: it is easy to drive a short way

1019
along the Ridgeway to dump waste materials. Cars stolen for joyriding are frequently taken up to the Ridgeway, driven along it and then torched, leaving behind a burned-out wreck.
A particularly unpleasant example of what is happening is the use of an iron age burial mound just off the Ridgeway at Peewit farm in my constituency as a stunt ramp by motor bikes and 4x4 vehicles, to such an extent that it will soon be totally destroyed.
The damage being done by all this is not just aesthetic, but economic. A great deal of effort and taxpayers' money is being put into encouraging the diversification of the rural economy, and the Ridgeway should be a major tourist attraction; but a survey published last April by the National Trails Office showed that some 50 per cent. of users were so dissatisfied with the condition of the trail that they were not likely to use it again. The Ridgeway is not as much used by hikers as many other national trails, and its potential as a contributor to a more diverse rural economy is not being fully realised.
Meanwhile, the flora and fauna are also suffering. Dr. John Dover of Staffordshire university has demonstrated the potential value of "green lanes" as biodiversity reservoirs in intensively managed farmland. If and as—with agriculture policy reform—farming recedes from some of the uplands along the Ridgeway, a great opportunity for expansion of those reservoirs will present itself; but that cannot be done if the Ridgeway continues to be exposed to abuse by cars and bikes.
My second point is that the Ridgeway is suffering from the failure of public regulations to keep abreast of the impact of expanding automotive technologies. Most of the western half is classified as a "road used as a public path", or RUPP, while the section in Wiltshire is classed as a "byway open to all traffic", or BOAT. It is on the basis of those regulatory classifications that the Ridgeway is open to motor traffic.
In 1992, the then Countryside Commission, together with the county councils, sought to introduce a traffic regulation order along the whole Ridgeway. That constituted a welcome recognition of the growing problem, which I supported at the time; but the inspector who presided over the public inquiry that followed, and the Minister to whom he reported, unfortunately failed to rise to the occasion. As I recall, the application for a TRO was rejected mainly on the ground that the presence of motor vehicles on the Ridgeway did not pose a safety risk to other users. I submit that the issue is not one of safety.
Over the past 10 years, the preferred device for dealing with the continuing deterioration of the Ridgeway has been a voluntary code of respect drawn up by worthy representatives of the different users and managers of the trail. I fear that there is considerable naiveté on the part of the worthy authorities involved about the motives of many motorised users. The code of respect asks them, for example, to avoid using the trail in wet conditions or when the surface is vulnerable after wet weather, but that is precisely when most of them enjoy the sport most. The code also recommends that motor vehicles stick to the well-worn parts of the track to prevent damage to the whole width, but although the Ridgeway is 30 m wide in some places its whole width is often covered with ruts. We must face the fact that the more the surface is destroyed, the more many motorised users enjoy it.
1020
The only effective way of protecting the Ridgeway from this growing abuse is to return to the principle of traffic regulation. I ask the Minister to do two things. First, I ask him to tell the Countryside Agency and the relevant councils along the Ridgeway that he looks to them to promote traffic regulation orders to ban all non-essential motor vehicles from the Ridgeway. Secondly, I ask him to confirm that if such TROs are not in place by the time the Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000 is implemented, all sections of the Ridgeway currently classified as RUPPs will become restricted byways that will no longer be open to motor vehicles except as narrowly prescribed in the Act.
Let me briefly anticipate and rebut two objections to my proposals. The first is that enforcement is impossible. I do not agree. The vast majority of users of the Ridgeway are law-abiding people who will refrain from doing what it is clearly not lawful for them to do. Physical barriers—locked gates with keys available to legal users—can also be effective. Beyond that, there is the fact that the police can take action against abuse on the basis of dated and timed photographs of the abuse taking place.
Mr. David Lidington: During last year's foot and mouth crisis, the Ridgeway path was closed and people—both local people and visitors—adhered to the regulations meticulously, and stayed off the Ridgeway altogether. As a result, paradoxically, by the end of the summer the surface of many parts of it was probably in better condition than it had been for many years.
Mr. Jackson: I agree, and that confirms my point about the law-abiding nature of most users of the Ridgeway. It does not, however, support the contention that the voluntary code of respect is doing the job. The fact is that it is not.
The second objection to the proposal for TROs is more philosophical. I have heard it argued that the right of motorists to use and abuse the Ridgeway is one of the immemorial liberties of the free-born Englishman. I suggest that those who advance that argument re-read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty"—if they have read it in the first place—and ponder on his distinction between self-regarding and other-regarding actions. The motorised abuse of the Ridgeway is a good example of an other-regarding action in which the pursuit of one man's satisfaction significantly reduces the satisfactions available to many others.
As the debate is taking place on May day, let me end by drawing the Minister's attention to the way in which the honourable traditions of Britain's labour movement, which he represents, bear on the problem I have described. I do not know whether the Fabian Society still holds summer schools, but I know from the diaries and memoirs of Barbara Castle and many others that in the past a summer school walk along the Ridgeway was a common event—perhaps after a weekend with Lord Faringdon at Buscot park, and an inspection of his mural painting of Stalin and Gandhi playing tennis on his lawn. Those Fabians might have been mistakenly slow to recognise how the motor car can liberate the individual, but they would rightly have seen how easily it can also become an instrument of private selfishness with each man wrapped in his metal cocoon, driving wherever and however he chooses.

1021
The Ridgeway is a species of common land, but that does not mean that access to it must be a free-for-all. The preservation of common assets—this is a good Fabian tradition—depends just as much on self-restraint and, if necessary, the law, as does the preservation of private property. We can stand back and allow our common heritage to be appropriated in selfish ways, treating it as just another throwaway item of the modern consumer society, or—and I appeal to the Minister to do this—we can use the legitimate power of the state to restrain unwarranted and antisocial private appropriations of what should be open to reasonable use, on fair terms, by all. It is in that May day spirit that I commend my proposals to the Minister and the House.
8.8 pm
Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted that the debate is taking place earlier than expected, because that gives those of us whose constituencies contain parts of the Ridgeway a chance to support the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson). I congratulate him on raising a matter that is important to us. Indeed, it has become increasingly important over the past few years—as he said—because of the degradation now being caused to the Ridgeway, and the difficulties that that creates for other users.
The Ridgeway is a particularly beautiful place. In my constituency, it runs through an area of outstanding natural beauty. It is a place where people like to walk, jog and ride their cycles and horses. None of those uses causes the damage caused by motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are incompatible with other users because of the way in which they tear the place up and leave it full of terrible ruts, making it difficult for others to use. It can therefore be argued that only those who cause the damage—mostly drivers of four-wheel-drive vehicles—should be excluded. Of course, they say, "Why should we suffer, if no one else is to be excluded?" However, the reason is that they are the only users who render the Ridgeway totally unusable by anybody else.
A number of four-wheel-drive owners say that they are careful to use the Ridgeway only on the right days and in accordance with the voluntary code of practice, and that they do much work to repair it. However, even if it is true that only a fairly small minority of four-wheel drive vehicles cause most of the damage, the fact remains that some irresponsible users have caused an enormous amount of damage, to the detriment of other users. They cannot possibly repair the damage that they do; it is far too great to be repaired by individuals. Sadly, it is necessary for the local authority to get involved. As the hon. Gentleman said, it often has to spend a great deal of money on repairing the damage done.
I am glad to have the opportunity briefly to support the hon. Gentleman, and to make it clear that, so far as the Liberal Democrat party is concerned, this is in no sense a party political issue. The same is doubtless true of the Labour party, and I hope that the Minister will back us in this regard. It is simply a question of trying to ensure that all those who have greatly enjoyed this beautiful land can continue to do so.
8.11 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I congratulate the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) on securing this Adjournment debate, and on using it as an opportunity to rewrite his maiden speech. With that in mind, I am not sure how to describe today's speech, so perhaps I shall leave that thought there.
I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in making clear the issues that he wants to discuss, and I hope that I will be able to respond constructively. Like the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), I welcome the fact that the debate has occurred earlier than it might otherwise have done. That is always preferable for a debate such as this, not only to enable more Members to contribute, but so that we can conclude our discussion before dinner, rather than after.
My interest in such issues is not just academic, or confined to the fact that they form part of my portfolio. As a walker myself, I know the importance of the condition of paths. I took the trouble to visit several of our national parks, and to examine the situation in areas of outstanding national beauty, so that I might understand what is happening on the ground and the nature of the problems experienced in various places. I certainly welcome the interest in this ancient right of way, and I appreciate that there are long-standing concerns about stretches of the Ridgeway.
I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Wantage, but I must question—constructively, I hope—some of the facts that he offers. I have particular respect for the fact that he has walked the path himself and brought such personal experiences to the debate, rather than simply relying on the reports of others. The challenge is to focus clearly on the real problems and issues, and to ensure that they are targeted effectively. In other words, we must respond in a way that actually solves some of the problems. Today, I shall try to cover both the general issues and some of the specific issues that he raised.
I recognise that some regard the use of motor vehicles on this ancient right of way as totally inappropriate. It is argued that such an unsurfaced way was intended for use only by carts and carriages such as those that the philosopher whom the hon. Gentleman quoted in his support might have used. I understand such concerns, but we must ensure that any action taken is well-founded and proportionate. He may be aware that audit work is under way. It is due to be completed in June, and should provide a real focus of information and a basis for action.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the growth of motor traffic on the Ridgeway. I do not doubt the figures that he quotes concerning the number of off-road motor bikes and 4x4s. He says that the number of such vehicles has increased by 400 per cent. nationally, but that does not necessarily translate into numbers used on the Ridgeway in general or proportionally. The most recent survey—admittedly, it was conducted some six years ago—actually showed a small decrease in vehicle use on the Ridgeway. That makes it all the more important that we examine the facts emerging from the current audit, so that we can be sure whether the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman is justified. For example, the audit might conclude that there are problems with a particular part of the Ridgeway, rather than throughout its length. That is

1023
why we must ensure that we understand what is happening, so that we can target whatever mischief is being made.
Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister accept that it is not just a question of the number of vehicles? Even if the number of vehicles using the Ridgeway has declined in the past few years, the damage done by each one has in many cases increased. Vehicles are getting more powerful, and more 4x4s are being used. What is important is not just the numbers, but the overall damage done.
Alun Michael: Indeed, and the audit must inform us about such matters, but I was addressing the specific point made by the hon. Member for Wantage. He suggested that a 400 per cent. increase in the number of vehicles nationwide means that a similar increase has occurred on the Ridgeway, but we need to know the actual level of use and the damage done. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless agree that we cannot simply extrapolate from statistics.
Mr. Robert Jackson: The audit is not before time, and I welcome it. The Minister is welcome to come and look at the Ridgeway in person. The four Members of Parliament who represent the Ridgeway—my hon. Friends the Members for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and myself—would be happy to receive him and to show him the ruts for himself.
Alun Michael: I am grateful for that invitation, and I certainly do not rule it out. An appropriate time to visit would be once the audit has been completed and the local players—including local Members—have had an opportunity to consider the findings and the discussions that will take place with bodies such as the local authorities. I am certainly happy to take an interest and for it to form part of the response, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that I should not detract from the responsibility of local parties to work the matter out. That is the right place to start.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to fly tipping and joyriding. Of course they are illegal activities, so a traffic regulation order is unlikely to deter the perpetrators, who constitute a nuisance in any case. There is a need for a co-ordinated approach. If such law breaking is causing a problem, the right way to deal with it is through the local authority and the police. They have a joint responsibility for identifying the nature of crime and disorder in the locality, and for producing a strategy to deal with any problems that are identified and agreed on.
Mr. Jackson: It is true that anybody determined to overcome traffic regulation orders and physical barriers can do so. However, although physical barriers may not solve the problem of bicycles, they could be an effective deterrent to motor cars. They could form part of a strategy to deal with the wider problems.
Alun Michael: Again, I am trying to respond to specific elements in the hon. Gentleman's speech and suggesting that the audit should consider the size of each problem that he mentioned. Something that is already illegal must be treated as an illegal activity, and it is the responsibility of the police and the local authority to
1024
co-ordinate action where necessary, proportionate to the extent of the problem. That would be the place to start that discussion.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to concern about an iron age burial mound, but my information is that it is a bronze age bell barrow. However, he is right to raise the concerns felt about the monument. I understand that efforts have been made to protect it, but it has no statutory protection as a scheduled ancient monument. It has sustained some damage, although some was caused by bicycles as well as by motor vehicles. It would be appropriate to invite English Heritage to advise on that and to take part in the discussions that will follow the audit.
Mr. Jackson: I am happy to be corrected on the point that the monument is bronze age rather than iron age, which makes it even older. However, the issue is the code of respect. What kind of respect is being shown to those monuments, even by bicyclists? The code of respect is not working.
Alun Michael: As I have said, I am trying to respond to the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised. If we ensure that all the authorities that have an interest in the matter are participating in the discussions of what should be done to combat the problems identified by the audit, we will arrive at a soundly based methodology.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that economic considerations are important. He mentioned people being put off the Ridgeway by the conditions, but we should question whether that is the case for the whole of the Ridgeway or for specific elements. The last survey by the National Trails Office in 1996 showed that 80 per cent. of those using the Ridgeway had used it before, so they had returned to use it again; 60 per cent. would not use the Ridgeway in certain conditions; and of the 60 per cent., only a small proportion said that a poor surface or motor vehicles had spoiled their enjoyment. That is why it is so important to establish the facts and then decide on the right solution.
There are powers available to restrict vehicle use where necessary by means of traffic regulation orders. The hon. Gentleman referred to a previous effort to apply such an order to the whole length of the Ridgeway. The purposes for which such orders can be made range widely, including avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the way; preventing damage to the way or any building on or near the way; facilitating the passage of a certain class of user; preventing use by vehicular traffic of a kind or in a manner that is unsuitable, having regard to the character of the way; preserving the character of the way in cases in which it is especially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot; and preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the way runs.
The application that was made in 1992–93 would have banned vehicle use on all of the western section on Sundays and bank holidays. At public inquiry, the inspector considered the issues of surface damage, danger to other users, noise and pollution, which were presumably informed by the nature of the application. However, he concluded that insufficient evidence existed to justify the ban. He also concluded—this is an important point when considering use of traffic regulation orders—that much of the surface damage was from tractors and

1025
other farm vehicles, which would not be banned by such an order. That returns us to the need to identify the real mischief and to take account of issues of proportionality in the response to problems.
Mr. Rendel: I listened to the list of reasons why a traffic regulation order might be made for the Ridgeway, but I could not spot a single one that would not apply in this case. Perhaps the Minister would care to consider that.
Alun Michael: The list was considered by an inspector in relation to a large section of the Ridgeway to see whether the evidence justified an order at that time. The fact that the earlier application for an order was unsuccessful would not prevent local authorities from using traffic regulation orders in particular problem areas. That is a decision for them, based on local circumstances. It may be that the audit will pinpoint parts of the Ridgeway where an order is necessary, and the evidence of the audit would greatly strengthen the hand of the local authority making the application.
Mr. Boris Johnson: I speak as a vice-president of the Friends of the Ridgeway—as my hon. Friends probably also are—and I have just joined that body. The Minister mentioned the audit. Can he confirm my impression that if the audit finds that walkers and ramblers are being deterred from using the Ridgeway by the damage that has been done to it and by the presence of 4x4 vehicles, he will be minded to institute traffic restricting measures?
Alun Michael: If the audit brings up evidence of the sort that the hon. Gentleman clearly expects, the local authority would be able to proceed on that basis. It is for the local authorities to initiate such action. The intention is for the audit to be discussed by the partners locally and by a wider forum, which will involve organisations such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman belongs, to develop a local strategy on that basis. It should start with the facts, try to reach agreement with people and then move forward, and that would be a constructive approach. My point was that if there are parts of the Ridgeway for which a traffic regulation order would target specific circumstances that cause problems, the outcome of the audit would help to provide evidence to substantiate the need for such an order.
We certainly should not give in to a counsel of despair. Traffic regulation orders and other means should be used to try to protect the environment, but any response should be proportional to the evidence of the problem. It would be wrong to suggest that the imposition of a blanket ban on motor vehicles along the whole length of the Ridgeway would be the appropriate response, unless the evidence of the audit suggests strongly that that is the case. We should also not ignore the current initiative by the Ridgeway Management Group.
Mr. Robert Jackson: I welcome the Minister's comments about the audit, and possible proposals that might emerge from its conclusions. However, I remind him of the conclusions of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who was the Minister in 1992. He said in his decision letter that he expected proposals for
1026
parts of the Ridgeway, but nothing was done. That is why we are in this situation 10 years later. I am very concerned that the message should be sent that we expect action to deal with the problems.
Alun Michael: I am not sure that I can comment on the situation between 1992 and the present, because—as I have indicated—the local authority had the power to apply for a traffic regulation order on a specific length of the Ridgeway, as opposed to one on the whole length or the western length. The current initiative was brought forward by the Ridgeway Management Group, composed of countryside service and rights of way managers from areas through which the Ridgeway passes. That work is being supported by the Countryside Agency, which has specific responsibility on behalf of my Department for engaging with such issues.
The current initiative involves the setting of standards for surface condition, which addresses some of the specific concerns raised by all four hon. Gentlemen who have contributed to the debate. The full audit of the condition is crucial and is due to be reported in June. The set of facts coming out of that audit will be discussed by the forum, with a view to the implementation of a management plan.
It is not for me to say whether that plan should include the making of orders. It is sensible that it should build on the evidence, especially as it is only a matter of weeks before the outcome of the audit will be available. I am sure that the report will be inspected, as soon it is available, with great interest by hon. Members representing constituencies along the Ridgeway.
When the audit is complete, we will have the facts before us. We will then have an opportunity for open debate and action that will be initiated at local level by those with direct responsibility and concern for the Ridgeway.
Mr. Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I accept what he says about the importance of keeping decisions at a local level. However, is he saying that he will take no view at all about the outcome of the audit report?
Alun Michael: Not at all. I am saying that it would be premature to impose solutions before the audit's full results are known, and the options that it presents considered—especially given that those results are so shortly expected. If we were being told that the audit would be undertaken in five years, with results available in 10, the concerns rightly raised by the hon. Member for Wantage, which clearly are shared by other hon. Members, would perhaps demand earlier action. In fact, the process is already nearing a conclusion. It is right that we await the outcome of the audit, and of the local debate that will be informed by its results.
Certainly I recognise that the activities of the irresponsible few can interfere with the rights of the many. However, we should consider the rights of responsible drivers, and especially the rights of people with mobility problems. Many places in this country offer only limited

1027
access to people with such problems. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that access should be made available for them.
Access by farmers and farm vehicles is another matter for local discussion with regard to responsible use and the avoidance of problems of degradation. All such matters will emerge from the audit and the subsequent debate. That is imminent and being planned, and I commend the organisations that have put the process in hand. Clearly, they have been required to do so by the same concerns that the hon. Member for Wantage set out so eloquently when he opened the debate.
I join the hon. Gentleman in his wish to stimulate philosophical debate on some of these issues. I welcome the fact that that is happening in the age of computers and cars—neither of which were available to John Stuart Mill when he was reflecting on liberty. I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's view that the immemorial liberties of a freeborn Englishman are referred to in a variety of inappropriate places. The liberty to drive a 4x4 or a motorcycle in inappropriate places, or in a way that causes misery to others, is one such, and I recall that similar arguments were raised when I had some responsibility for introducing legislation to control handguns. I always felt it odd that the liberty to carry a handgun should be considered as inalienable as one or two other countries seem to believe. The issue occasionally appears in the hunting debate, and I wonder whether it is always appropriate there.
1028
Finally, I assure the hon. Member for Wantage that the Fabian Society is alive and well. I declare an interest, as I am a member. It continues creatively to inform this Government's thinking, and I hope that it will inform the thinking of people in other parties as well.
Essentially, my message to the hon. Gentleman is that we are willing to take appropriate action, but that it must be proportional and based on evidence. It must also start from a strong consensus at a local level. The processes that are in place give some reason to hope that sensible proposals will come forward, and it would be entirely appropriate for the local partnership or local authorities to act on those proposals. If issues are raised that it is appropriate for the Government to consider, I look forward to walking with the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues—as part of a curious mixture of people—along the Ridgeway at some point in the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Wantage for initiating this debate, and those hon. Members who have joined in. They have adopted a constructive approach to what is clearly a matter of great local concern. I hope that I have responded in an appropriate way. I accept that problems exist, but I have also tried to use the information supplied by the hon. Gentleman to tease out some of the ways in which it would be appropriate to respond. I am sure that all of us will look forward to the information emerging in June, and to the local level discussion that will follow.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Nine o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Defence Policy (Scotland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Fitzpatrick.]
9.30 am
David Cairns: I express my thanks to Mr. Speaker for selecting this important topic for debate, coming as it does in the midst of a national consultation on the significant new chapter of the strategic defence review. I hope that the many hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies use this opportunity to contribute their suggestions about the new chapter. The debate is important as it deals with the issues posed in the aftermath of 11 September and concerns the possible need for us to reconfigure our defence requirements as a result of such atrocities.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence outlined his reasons for opening a new chapter of the strategic defence review in December last year, he summed up his thinking in one line. When commenting on what happened on 11 September, he said that we must
"ensure that Britain has the right defence concepts, capabilities and forces to deal with threats of this kind and of this scale."
We are not starting with a blank page. The United Kingdom has a long and proud military history and our armed forces continue to be among the best in the world.
The original SDR that was conducted three years ago by Lord Robertson of Port Ellen was widely praised as a model of how modern defences should be planned and structured. It set out clear policy guidelines from which our military procurement and planning would follow, and laid out the range of capabilities needed to defend the UK. Indeed, the action that we have taken since 11 September has been made possible thanks, in large part, to the work carried out in the SDR.
However, it would be wrong to assume that our defence requirements are set in stone, and we must now ask some serious and probing questions about how equipped we are as a country to deal with the growth of asymmetric threats and rogue nations. Although the consultation document outlines questions and comprehensive options, I shall restrict my remarks to only one-that, which the document describes as "engaging the causes", in other words, dealing with the ways in which to prevent further atrocities such as 11 September. Incidentally, I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend resisted calling that chapter "Tough on asymmetric threats, tough on the causes of asymmetric threats", but that more or less sums up the position.
It is encouraging that the Government are actively consulting on ways in which UK forces can help developing states build better counter-terrorist capabilities for themselves, as well as assisting those developing countries in an ongoing humanitarian effort to defuse potential terrorist activity before it is too late.
180WH
Such objectives are not contradictory and, even if they occasionally sit uneasily together, they should not be decoupled. I am pleased that the Government are giving a commitment to that end. That aim will mean a concerted and ongoing global effort, which the UK cannot do alone, and deeper co-operation with other agencies such as the UN, the EU and our NATO allies will be needed if we are to succeed in that noble task.
What are the implications for Scotland? There are three main areas. First, and most importantly, Scottish members of the armed forces have been at the forefront of many of our recent campaigns in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and elsewhere. I hope that hon. Members agree that we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to those men and women. In future, even more may be asked of them, but I believe that they will be equal to the task.
Secondly, many of our Scottish bases may be asked to assume new or different responsibilities in the changing environment. The Ministry of Defence has 374 sites in Scotland, covering nearly 25,000 hectares, including some in my constituency. That amounts to about £1.3 billion in cash terms alone—a considerable investment. At present, 10 per cent. of those employed by the MOD work in Scotland, a figure that has grown in recent years.
I hope that those who are negotiating a transfer to the private sector at Faslane and Coulport receive favourable terms in relation to pay, conditions and pensions. I understand that good progress has been made between management and the unions, but I would welcome assurances on those points.
The third implication for Scotland is in the vital realm of defence procurement and defence-related jobs. In order to be brief, I shall restrict my remarks to naval procurement, in which I have a strong constituency interest.
I am delighted at the success of the Clyde yards in securing major new defence contracts, especially for type 45s, which are worth about £2 billion. The Government have announced their intention to embark on the largest warship building programme since world war two, and they have already brought a degree of job security to Clyde shipyards that we have not known in many years.
We await with keen interest the placing of the contracts for the new aircraft carriers. Yesterday's announcement in the Scottish press of the agreement between BAE Systems and Clydeport that the Inchgreen dry dock in Inverclyde would be used for assembling the aircraft carriers should the bid be successful was extremely welcome news. As a Member who represents a constituency that contains Inchgreen, I strongly urge my hon. Friend to support that excellent bid.
Rachel Squire: I thank my hon. Friend for having secured this excellent debate. I apologise that, because of a Standing Committee, I shall not be able to stay for all of it.
I share my hon. Friend's pride in the shipyard work and the warship orders that have been placed. Does he agree that while Rosyth dockyard and the Clyde shipyards hope to secure work on the new aircraft carriers, we are all clear that such work and a prospect

181WH
of a secure future would not be available to us if Scotland were to go down the road of independence or had voted Conservative?
David Cairns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, with her customary foresight, pre-empts my next passage. I am sure that the Rosyth bid will be excellent.
Mr. James Gray: When the Conservative party comes to government three years from now, we shall continue orders for the carriers.
David Cairns: I accept the sincerity with which that assurance is given. However, my constituents in Greenock and Inverclyde have been used to many assurances from previous Conservative Governments, and have learned to treat those assurances with the deep scepticism that they deserve. Indeed, our ability to build ships in Greenock and Inverclyde is recovering only now from 18 years of decimation brought by the Conservative party when it was in power.
On a wider note, following the introduction of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), today is the fifth anniversary of Labour's return to office. It was a glorious day, pretty much like today, as I remember.
Throughout the past five years, the Government have shown beyond all doubt our commitment to the maxim that a Government's first duty is to defend their citizens. It follows axiomatically that the first duty of a political party that aspires to government must be to explain to those citizens exactly how it proposes to defend them.
During a recent debate in a Scottish Grand Committee, some of my hon. Friends were uncharitable enough to suggest that the Scottish National party had a somewhat insubstantial defence policy. [Interruption.] I, too, was shocked to hear that. I decided to verify the matter for myself, and must report that to call SNP defence policy insubstantial would be flattering. There is next to nothing on the subject on the SNP's website, and a search of Hansard yields slim pickings.
In desperation, I turned to the SNP's 2001 general election manifesto, a document so compelling that it moved the SNP into third place in Greenock and Inverclyde—down from second place, unfortunately. It secured the party the princely total of less than 15 per cent. of the vote. The manifesto contains some interesting paragraphs on defence, although considerably fewer than those devoted to a fascinating article called "A Day in the Life of Alex Salmond", which I warmly commend to hon. Members who have not read it. To summarise it, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) gets up, talks a lot of nonsense and goes back to bed.
The paragraphs on defence make fascinating reading. In them, for example, the SNP says that
"our opposition to nuclear defence will make our continued participation in nuclear alliances difficult."
The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who could not be here due to a long-standing engagement, sought to clarify the policy during a Scottish Grand
182WH
Committee debate. I told him yesterday that I would quote him. He said that
"we cannot take part in an alliance predicated on the first strike of weapons of mass destruction. That is a principle on which we are not prepared to compromise."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 5 March 2002; c. 26.]
Nothing could be clearer: an independent Scotland will be out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on principle.
John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that withdrawal from NATO would leave not only Scotland but Britain in an intolerable position? It would do nothing for the world's fight against terrorism.
David Cairns: My hon. Friend is right. It is bizarre that while countries across Europe are queuing up to join NATO, the SNP thinks that Scotland should leave it. Scotland would be the only country ever to leave NATO. However, if that is the policy, no one seems to have explained it to Mr. Colin Campbell, a Member of the Scottish Parliament and the official SNP defence spokesperson. He told the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament:
"The SNP supported full participation in NATO but the stumbling block of first use of nuclear weapons made it modify its stance.
The SNP states that an independent Scotland should not be part of the NATO command structure".
Mr. Campbell chose his words carefully. He could have said, "An independent Scotland should not be part of NATO—full stop", but he did not. He spoke of the command structure only. Mr. Campbell knows full well that, as France has proved, it is possible to be in NATO but not in the command structure. So which is it to be? The SNP can either be out of NATO on principle, which is what the hon. Member for Moray clearly stated, or it can be out of the command structure but a member of the rest of the organization, as Mr. Campbell desires. It cannot do both. The point is important, and the SNP must clarify the matter urgently.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the SNP states elsewhere in its manifesto that it would
"negotiate a phased withdrawal from NATO but will retain military co-operation with NATO nations as a result of…other proposed international involvements."
We have heard about withdrawal from NATO from one quarter, participation in NATO but not in the military command structure from another, and withdrawal but co-operation from yet another. Is not that just one more example of the inconsistency of the SNP's policy on membership of NATO?
David Cairns: My hon. Friend is correct. The Scottish National party's policy is nothing short of a shambles. Each option is fraught with difficulties and questions that must be answered. When the party has made up its mind on the options, there are a series of questions—
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) wishes to intervene so that we can hear the word from the horse's mouth. Would the SNP leave NATO on principle, or would it stay in the NATO political structure but leave the command structure?
Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman has discussed the Scottish National party's defence

183WH
policy at length. I am more interested in Scottish new Labour's defence policy, especially on nuclear weapons. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the extent to which he supports that policy?
David Cairns: I anticipated that the hon. Gentleman might ask that. Whenever SNP Members are asked about the shambles that is their defence policy, they trot out elderly resolutions that were passed by Scottish Labour party conferences many years ago. The most recent Labour party policy document says that Labour will continue to be the party of strong defence by investing in our armed forces so that they are able to meet today's challenges and tomorrow's threats. It remains committed to strong security through NATO. That is clear and unambiguous. It is the Labour Government's policy to remain in NATO as part of the defence structure, and we are committed to participating in the nuclear umbrella that NATO affords. That has been demonstrated clearly over the past five years.
The hon. Gentleman declined to answer my question—perhaps if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will do so later. However, I want to pose questions that flow from any of the options that the SNP is juggling as its policy.
Only France is in NATO but outside its command structure, which is Mr. Campbell's preferred option—this gets confusing so I hope that hon. Members are following this strand of SNP policy. However, France has its own independent nuclear capability, which is more substantial than ours. Does Mr. Campbell seriously believe that other NATO members would be happy for Scotland to participate in NATO's political planning and decision making, but to make no contribution to the military effort? That is fantasy.
The other options are equally difficult. Setting aside the fact that countries are lining up to join NATO—as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) said—at the exact time that the SNP wants out, important questions must be answered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) said that the SNP's policy is to have a phased withdrawal. Let us examine what phasing means. It would take time to close the nuclear base on the Clyde, and if the SNP was to be the good neighbour that it claims, presumably the rest of the United Kingdom would be given time to prepare alternative sites. The entire armed forces would have to be divvied up and personnel, property, hardware and material would have to be allocated between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK. That would take years to sort out and, in the meantime, the nuclear base would remain in Scotland. There would be the absurd position that Scotland would house England's nuclear capability but would have zero influence on how it would be used.
Mr. John McFall: Perhaps my hon. Friend is being a little too charitable to the SNP. A few months ago, the leader of the SNP in Scotland, Mr. John Swinney, was at the gates of the Clyde submarine base at Faslane asking for the base to be closed not tomorrow, but now. That would destroy 6,000 to 7,000 jobs. The next time that we hear an SNP spokesperson
184WH
talking on an economic platform, we should bear in mind that the hallmark of the SNP policy is job destruction, not job creation.
David Cairns: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We both share a strong interest in the matter because many of our constituents are employed in the bases.
Sandra Osborne: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), I apologise that I cannot stay for the whole debate because I have to attend a Standing Committee. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) aware that in my constituency the SNP has opposed the removal of the anti-submarine warfare Pacility, HMS Gannet, which forms part of the nuclear capability at Faslane? Does he agree that that is rank hypocrisy?
David Cairns: My hon. Friend makes her point tellingly. She mentions another strand of SNP policy. The manifesto calls for a phased withdrawal, presumably over time, but there is now a commitment to immediate withdrawal. Which is it to be? If it is the first duty of Governments to defend their citizens, it must surely be the first duty of political parties to explain to those citizens how they propose to defend them. The SNP has a huge amount of explaining to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the debate should be based on the subject for which the Government have responsibility, not on other political parties.
David Cairns: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for that ruling.
As I have said over the past five years, it is clear that the Government are trusted on defence, and we must ensure that that remains. We are trusted because our policies are consistent, coherent and geared towards providing a strong defence of our country. I make this point for the last time, even though it is directly relevant—the current leadership of the SNP knows that, unlike the Government, its entire defence policy is a complete and utter shambles.
Pete Wishart: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's tirade against the SNP's defence policy. Will he comment in his closing remarks about the Government's privatisation agenda and the impact that it is having on defence jobs throughout Scotland?
David Cairns: I have already done so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening. I clearly asked my right hon. Friend the Minister a series of questions on the precise negotiations taking place in Faslane and Coulport. I asked for specific assurances and I expect to receive them. It is hardly my fault if the hon. Gentleman was not listening. I appear to be in a no-win situation—if I speak about Labour's defence policy, the hon. Gentleman does not listen, and if I speak about the SNP's, I stray beyond the bounds of good order.
The Labour Government—[Interruption.] This is my fourth attempt to conclude, but I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that one objective of the Government's

185WH
defence policy is to be coherent. Will he explain where the coherence is in taking the Sea Harriers out of service and abolishing the air defence for the fleet at sea?
David Cairns: Those are questions that emerge from the aftermath of 11 September. We must deal with important questions—about the size of our aircraft carriers, for example. In a sense, this is a case of chicken and egg. If we go for Harriers based on aircraft carriers, we have shorter aircraft carriers. If we have shorter aircraft carriers, they cannot be used by our allies because they do not have Sea Harriers, which limits our ability to participate in global alliances and actions throughout the world. We must carefully consider all such issues in the light of 11 September and the pew dispensation that will result.
I hope that the signs given by the Secretary of State on Navy day recently when he spoke about increasing the envelope size for the new aircraft carriers are taken up, precisely because of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I hope that we build the largest possible aircraft carriers within the existing framework. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister may wish to comment on that in his winding-up speech.
Mr. Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
David Cairns: No. I have already gone on far longer than I intended. I have given way many times and I am trying to conclude.
We are trusted on defence, and we must continue to ensure that that remains the position. People know that we have a Government and a Prime Minister with the courage and determination to stand up to tyrants and aggressors. They also know that the current leader of the SNP does not even have the courage to stand up to Margo MacDonald, although if he did, he would be able to stand up to tyrants and aggressors.
I urge the Government, especially the Chancellor, carefully to consider the funding of defence in the current comprehensive spending review. He has already allocated increased defence spending after several years of defence cuts by the previous Conservative Government, but more may be required if we are to rise to the ambitions set by the Prime Minister and fulfil our historic role as a leading international power—a country devoted to fighting for the principles of freedom, justice and democracy.
9.54 am
Mr. Peter Duncan: I am reminded of how I usually feel when I inadvertently stray into the Scottish Grand Committee: I feel as though I am impinging on private grief between the Government and the Scottish National party.
I wish to use the short time afforded to me to redirect the discussion to the topic in hand. I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on securing the debate. Since we last discussed the subject, in the recent Scottish Grand Committee, we have been reminded—if any reminder was needed—that this is a vital topic for Scots. As the hon. Member for
186WH
Angus (Mr. Weir)—who, sadly, has just departed—knows, Arbroath's 45 Commando is in combat in Afghanistan. It offers an outstanding example of the selfless role of our forces in today's world, and we should focus on that at all times during the debate. As a part of the UK's and the international coalition's war on terrorism, 45 Commando plays a key role in the defence of Scotland. Its war is a just war, and it is conducted on behalf of all of us. I know that all of Scotland is proud of those troops.
However, the debate is about defence in Scotland, and that points me to address how the activities inherent in our nation's defence impact on Scotland itself—and, naturally, on my constituency. All too often, the debate on how Scotland's defence industry impacts on Scotland has degenerated into a sterile exchange—often, I hasten to add, between Ministers and the Scottish National party—about whether Scotland gets its fair share of defence expenditure.
I genuinely hope that we can move on from that futile argument, as I believe that we cannot split the UK's defence into neat compartments. Some political parties may seek advantage from suggesting otherwise, but the truth remains that all four parts of the UK benefit from the UK's defence, and that our security is non-divisible.
However, many people are concerned about the way in which the Government have run down the Scottish regiments. I am sorry to be non-consensual about this, but five of our regiments are currently significantly undermanned, as the Minister knows. Rightly or wrongly, in Scotland that is taken as showing that those historic Army battalions are no longer the priority that they once were.
Mr. Eric Joyce: If the hon. Gentleman's party was still in government, what would be the situation with regard to manning in those regiments?
Mr. Duncan: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a few seconds, I will come to that shortly.
Speaking to armed forces personnel from my constituency, it is clear that morale among officers and in the ranks is at an all-time low. Recruitment is perceived to be the problem, but difficulties with retention are the source of undermanning in those Scottish regiments. I know that search consultants have been retained to improve the recruitment process, but the greater problem is the increasing likelihood that highly trained and disciplined personnel will find the lure of private industry irresistible when resources in the forces are under such strain.
In addition to reducing armed forces numbers, there has been a similar reduction in our naval capability. The Minister's attention has rightly turned to maximising the value to the taxpayer with regard to refitting programmes. Regardless of whether the externalisation that is under way is "partnership"—as the Ministry of Defence would describe it—or privatisation, the concern remains that the transfer of refit activities in Scotland should not result in a situation that prejudices our naval capability through lack of emergency maintenance capacity. I would welcome any reassurance that the Minister can offer on that important matter.

187WH
The role of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the recent naval refit procurement crisis needs to be clarified. Scotland looks to that office for reassurance that Scotland's interests are being looked after. However, the manner of the release of some of the information concerning Faslane and Coalport again gives rise to the suggestion that the Secretary of State is currently the Cabinet's man in Scotland, rather than Scotland's man in the Cabinet.
Employment dependence on defence contracts is not limited to central Scotland, never mind Clydeside. Many communities that are miles from the M8 are heavily indebted to MOD activity. My constituency is home to some of the lowest average incomes in the UK, and one of our major assets is our landscape, which is valuable to armed forces for low-flying practice, firing range activities and an airfield.
I would like to explain the importance of how MOD activity, or inactivity, can hold back economic development in the rural communities of Scotland. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde mentioned, there are 374 sites throughout the UK, but some are more significant to their immediate communities than others. In Wigtownshire, we have been served a huge blow since the Scottish Grand Committee debate by the MOD announcement that West Freugh airfield will close to full-time operations. That closure will lead to between 50 and 80 job losses in one of the most remote areas of southern Scotland. Compared with the potential losses through naval maintenance, that number may not seem huge to hon. Members who represent central belt constituencies, but it is a devastating blow to the local economy, and one from which we must learn.
The airfield was operated by a Government-owned plc called QinetiQ, which was given a lease on the airfield. It certainly had challenges, with the number of military aircraft movements steadily declining to the point at which the MOD airfield regulator deemed that there was insufficient traffic to ensure air safety. Several reasons can doubtless be cited for that decline, but one must be the confusion at the heart of the commercialisation of MOD activities in the sector. QinetiQ had been given the task of operating the airfield, but it showed little ambition in developing new and replacement business. It accepted the declining movements, and despite having the ability to investigate the alternatives, it regrettably chose not to.
Jim Sheridan: I am extremely amused by the hon. Gentleman's synthetic concern about job losses in the defence industry. I stand here as a victim of his Government's defence review of the early 1990s, when I and thousands like me were made redundant. At that time, there was no concerted effort to help those people. This Government are investing, and encouraging companies such as BAE Systems and Thales to invest, in quality jobs, albeit in the central belt. That, coupled with the fact that Rolls-Royce has also decided to stay in Scotland, is tangible evidence that such companies have confidence in the Government in delivering the quality goods that the armed forces need.
Mr. Duncan: I simply direct the hon. Gentleman to the Bishopton area, where he can hear how well the Government's policies are regarded.
188WH
Those who work at West Freugh, many of whom have been in touch with me since the closure announcement, speak plainly of how little business development work was undertaken, while any that was completed was ignored. The airfield represents one of the most significant structural assets of Galloway, but it was clearly more important to Galloway than it was to QinetiQ. The company is rightly focusing on developing its core businesses in holographic 3D imaging, fibre optics, and radar-avoidance and missile-tracking technology, but against that background, the importance of maximising the potential of remote airfields was regarded as trivial. To the local economy, however, it is far from trivial—it is crucial.
The MOD must introduce new and imaginative proposals for interacting with the private sector, enterprise agencies and others. Under-performing assets can sit on the MOD balance sheet with little or no consequence for the Ministry or, with respect, for Ministers. However, the effect on assets such as West Freugh can, if left to fester, be devastating for rural employment. From where will the impetus now come for investigating the use of the airfield for civil flights to supplement employment? Where is the drive to explore new uses for airfield buildings?
I was always highly dubious of the 1998 decision to involve the private sector in what was then the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, as the independent agency's major customers in the USA and elsewhere had every right to be sceptical of the security implications of that privatisation. However, the net effect of the process has been to put the precious infrastructure in the hands of an independent company with little likely reward for exploiting the potential. The Minister and his colleagues should think carefully about the current situation, and consider involving private companies in developing asset value where they have value to the communities in which they lie. West Freugh is typical of many locations throughout Scotland and the UK that would benefit from such an approach.
Great strides are possible so long as the private sector is given free rein and is allowed to reap the benefits of its ingenuity.
Mr. Francois: Does my hon. Friend accept that part of the problem that affects the site that he mentioned harks back to the fact that the Government have had four years to try to get DERA right? We are now on the third strategy for dealing with that. After four years, they still do not appear to have a coherent plan that commands support throughout industry, and people in Scotland are suffering as a result.
Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. As I said, there is confusion at the heart of the commercialisation policy. I am looking for a simple strategy that will benefit our rural communities.
Scotland's defence is rightly dependent on our key role in the UK, as we play our part in supplying troops, technology and training grounds Scotland's geography has much to offer our defence industry in the 21st century.
Mr. Joyce: The hon. Gentleman's intonation suggests that he is about to conclude his remarks. I want to return

189WH
to his point about manning levels in Scottish regiments. To jog his memory, the previous Conservative Government had such abysmal manning records that they disbanded regiments. Would he like to comment?
Mr. Duncan: I admit that the MOD is addressing the recruitment problem. If the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will find that I referred to the fact that the problem is now retention. I know that he has experience of his own. The Government's current policy is doing nothing to address that problem. I hope that the MOD will appreciate that open-mindedness in its evaluation and research procurement could result in retaining and returning wealth to those rural communities that have served the Ministry so well for so long.
10.7 am
John Robertson: I am delighted to contribute to this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on securing it and on his excellent contribution.
We have had this discussion many times, so it will not surprise the Minister if I concentrate mainly on shipbuilding. The Scotstoun yard is in my constituency and it is dear to my heart. Shipbuilding remains a crucial industry to Anniesland and the Clyde, as well as to Scotland and the UK. Our standing in naval circles throughout the world has been second to none ever since the first coracle managed to sail up a short river, probably somewhere in the north of Scotland. We have been the envy of every country in the world, and we must retain that leadership.
Today, shipbuilding employs only 30,000 workers; in 1960, there were 200,000. Various problems have contributed to the decline of shipbuilding, but we are here to talk about defence. A large problem facing the warship yards in the early 1990s was the significant reduction in MOD orders—part of the peace dividend. I blame no Government for that—the world was grateful not to be under such strain. Now, however, we are under a different type of strain. The critical problem occurred prior to that, when shipbuilding was privatised. We privatised purely for money, and we forgot to modernise. Companies such as BAE Systems have said that extensive investment is needed and that they will supply that investment in the Clyde. I wait to see what investment they make. I hope that it will bring more work to the Clyde, but there are other issues to consider.
In October 2000, the MOD ordered six vessels worth £240 million. Two of the orders went to Harland and Wolff in Belfast, but the other four went to Germany. The Govan yard missed out and, as everyone knows, it was under threat of closure for quite a while. Although we are thankful for the MOD orders that saved the yard, they did so with reduced manpower. Our shipbuilding industry is heavily dependent on military shipbuilding, which sustains the Clyde in particular. The Clyde was once the foremost shipbuilding power in the world, but the number of jobs there is now down to 3,000. The loss of the ro-ro ships to German yards was a real body blow
190WH
to the Clyde. EU rules lost us those ships because we had to tender outside Great Britain. The loss of those four ships almost led to Govan's demise.
Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend is commenting on the overdependence of the shipbuilding industry on defence orders. We must learn from what happened in the early 1990s, because the number of ships that the MOD can have built is finite. Does he agree that every effort should be made to encourage defence companies to diversify, to exploit commercial markets and to gain expertise from those workers who build frigates and other aircraft carriers on the Clyde?
John Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a good point and is absolutely right. Companies such as BAE Systems will have to invest in the yards that I have mentioned. If we do not get that investment, I have no doubt that the yards will close, even with Government orders.
As we know, the orders for the type 45 frigates have been given out. I was fortunate to be present at the signing of the contracts that, along with the ALSL—alternative landing ships logistic—orders, will keep the Clyde on the go for about 10 years. I congratulate the Government on showing their commitment to the Clyde and to shipbuilding throughout the country with those orders. I am sure that the Clyde will not let them down and will provide the usual high standard of workmanship. However, even though the Government have helped by placing those orders, the industry continues to shrink year by year. We need to consider the overall picture to ensure that subsidies and handouts are not needed in the long term. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) said, it is important that the industry diversifies.
If skilled labour is lost, it cannot be replaced. It takes more years than we care to mention to train someone, and in that time the industry might have gone out of business. Losing the shipbuilding industry would be like losing our heritage: the power of Britain in years gone by was based on shipbuilding. However, while other countries develop their shipbuilding industry, we, sadly, seem to be doing the opposite. We must try to regain our place in the world in that respect. The strategic review is helping in its own way by considering our defence requirements, an issue that I believe the Government have taken seriously.
In addition, a newspaper in Scotland, the Daily Record, is mounting a campaign to try to secure two aircraft carrier orders for Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde has a copy of that paper. I commend that newspaper for its campaign, which is important not only for the Clyde, but for competitors in Rosyth and Nigg. It is important that we get those orders for Scotland. We have shown in the past that we can handle large ships on the Clyde, and I have no doubt that the workers there would receive the work gratefully.
It is important that we are part of NATO. It is important that we show that not only Scotland, but Britain and Europe are part of NATO. It exists for a reason. Certain ships were used at the beginning of the confrontation with Afghanistan: without the American ships to help with the initial landings, take-offs and

191WH
missile firings, the whole theatre of war would have been impossible. We would not be sitting here today talking about how well our troops are doing and how happy the people have been since their arrival.
Mr. Lazarowicz: Does my hon. Friend agree that if Scotland were to withdraw from NATO, it would, in the words of a leading Scottish National party thinker, George Kerevan, find itself committed to a Brigadoon republic?
John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I did not know that there were any SNP thinkers.
I have said on several occasions that the MOD will need to consider our naval requirements. I have asked the Minister to ensure that during consideration of the new chapter attention is given to whether we have the necessary shipping to mount a campaign similar to the one in Afghanistan. If the Americans could not supply the necessary vessels, could anyone else do so? The Americans are an important part of NATO, but we cannot always rely on them to supply every ship that is needed. By examining the landing craft and other types of ship that would be required for such a theatre of war, we might stimulate our shipbuilding industry and other armaments businesses in the United Kingdom. Moreover, we would not be reliant on a friendly country to assist us if an operation had to be mounted within a short time.
Mr. Francois: I heard the hon. Gentleman's point about not always being able to rely on the Americans in all circumstances. If he believes that, will he have a quiet word with the Minister at the end of the debate about the fact that part of the rationale for getting rid of the Sea Harriers is that we will always be able to rely on American carriers for fleet air defence?
John Robertson: Harriers have some shortcomings in that they are not quite as speedy as some of the aircraft that they may come up against, and although they can take off vertically, they have many restrictions. We must look at what is best. We have always said that we want to give our troops and Air Force the best equipment, and I believe that the Harrier is not the best plane for the current job. I may be wrong—I am not a pilot—but that is how I see it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde on securing the debate. I ask the Minister to get the aircraft carriers up to the Clyde-I might get him a ticket for the cup final. If he cannot do that, I will not hold it against him, but Scotland must do the job that it has done in the past and be given the opportunity to show off its high standards of workmanship.
Mr. David Taylor (in the Chair): Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that five people want to speak in the 12 minutes remaining before I call the Front Bench spokesmen at 10.30.
10.19 am
Pete Wishart: In the time-honoured way, I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on securing
192WH
the debate. I am not sure what more he hopes to learn about defence in Scotland, given that we debated that topic in the Scottish Grand Committee only a few weeks ago. There is a feeling of deja vu and "Groundhog Day" rolled into one, with the debate featuring the typical attacks on SNP defence policy that we have come to expect.
Our debate takes place at a time when many Scottish service personnel are serving abroad with great distinction. Hon. Members present here and all the political parties in Scotland support that. Unfortunately, conditions are not so rosy on the domestic front. Rarely have service personnel and defence support staff in Scotland been in such a state of flux. That is because of the Government's privatisation agenda: morale has been undermined at Navy and Air Force bases by plans to contract out the transferable skills and experience of committed workers to companies in the private sector.
Last week, union leaders representing naval workers in Scotland set the Ministry of Defence a seven-day deadline to avert industrial action. I am relieved and pleased that industrial action has been averted but, like Jack Dromey of the Transport and General Workers Union, the SNP believes that it is "bitter" that naval support jobs at Faslane and Coulport, and at Portsmouth and Plymouth in England are to be transferred to the private sector. Regrettably, it was not announced on the Floor of the House of Commons. Instead, Members of Parliament received letters while the Ministry of Defence was frantically briefing journalists in a damage-limitation exercise.
The Government's privatisation agenda is not restricted to Navy installations-it also affects air bases. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has consistently raised with the MOD the proposed privatisation of the Defence Fire Service. He is deeply concerned about the consequences and implications of that privatisation for RAF Lossiemouth, which is in his constituency. There is little support for the proposal from the DFS, from other support staff or from service personnel, regardless of rank.
Early-day motion 853, which was signed by members of all political parties, some of whom are present, calls on the Secretary of State for Defence to halt all consideration of proposals to put out to tender and to privatise the Defence Fire Service. The hon. Members for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), and the hon. Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) and for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan), all of whom signed the motion, are as anxious as I am to ensure that the Government reverse their position on that daft privatisation proposal. I shall be interested to see whether the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde will join his hon. Friends in signing the motion, given his interest in defence in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray asked a question about the DFS during Defence questions on Monday. Will the Minister answer that question, which on Monday he studiously deflected with a typical tirade against the SNP? I remind him of the question:

193WH
"Can he name one single neutral observer, trade union, political party or Back-Bench Member of Parliament…who supports the privatisation of the Defence Fire Service? "—[Official Report, 29 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 662.]
Mr. Joyce: Will the hon. Gentleman briefly describe how he would configure the Defence Fire Service in an independent Scotland?
Pete Wishart: Along with everyone who is involved in the debate, the DFS opposes privatisation. The Minister knows that full well—it is why he could not reply on Monday. He could not name one person who supported the proposal.
An issue that concerns me, my party and the vast majority of public opinion in Scotland is the stationing of all the United Kingdom's nuclear defence weapons in Scotland. As this is a debate on defence policy in Scotland, it is worth examining the defence policy of Scottish new Labour, on which I congratulate the Scottish Labour party. It is a good, well thought out policy and—surprisingly for Scottish new Labour—it is in tune with Scottish public opinion. The policy states:
"Conference notes that Scotland now houses all of Britain's nuclear weapons and that the Russian Threat previously used to justify these weapons has disappeared."
It continues:
"Conference further notes that scrapping Trident would now save some £1.5 billion annually which could and should be constructively employed in areas of obvious need such as housing, education and the Health service as well as ensuring the creation of alternative employment and retraining of displaced defence workers."
That is a very good motion. I would sign up to it immediately, but it presents more of a problem to Labour Members.
I was impressed by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) during the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee. I asked him whether he supported any part of the policy. He candidly replied that he now supports the Government policy, which presumably renders the policy that I quoted redundant and not worth the paper it is written on. I wonder what on earth the Labour party delegates were doing in Perth at the recent conference. Presumably, they were discussing motions to decide policy which, if the new Labour Government do not like it, will be rejected out of hand. I hope that hon. Members who support new Labour question party policy and the party's reaction to nuclear weapons, and that they will consider their position during the scramble for seats at the next general election. They must find out whether that policy is supported.
At least, the membership of Scottish new Labour recognises that nuclear weapons are a serious issue for Scotland. Scottish public opinion is opposed to the continued siting of nuclear weapons on Scotland's soil, as are the Churches and a vast array of civic groups. I am sure that, like me, they were chilled to the bone to hear the Secretary of State for Defence saying in Defence questions on Monday that he would still be willing to use such evil weapons of mass destruction in certain circumstances. No circumstances can justify the use of a weapon that, with a press of a button, would cause genocide on an unthinkable scale and exterminate society as we know and understand it.
194WH
It is curious that not one Scottish Labour MP here and present at the Scottish Grand Committee's debate has supported the Labour party's policy—but let us not be too unfair to them. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde referred to the Scottish National party website, but I could not find a Scottish new Labour party website. I do not know what gems it is trying to hide, but I certainly could not access such a website yesterday.
I am not surprised that there is no mention by the Ministry of Defence of the lost economic impact of defence spending in Scotland. In January 2001, the Government were asked how much of the defence budget in actual terms was spent in Scotland. The reply was that the Defence Bills Agency had spent only 4.6 per cent. of its £15 billion budget in Scotland, representing a shortfall of £600 million for Scottish taxpayers. That is a massive reallocation of taxpayers' money away from our economy. I want to ensure that Scotland secures maximum taxpayer benefit through significant domestic procurement.
We remain dependent on Whitehall Departments' decisions to give contracts to Scottish manufacturers. We have seen countless examples of job cuts and uncertainty on the Clyde. That is not the case in neighbouring small, independent countries, whose support for shipbuilding and defence-related employment exceeds that seen in Scotland. I am particularly impressed by Finland, which supports 14,000 shipbuilding jobs, and Norway, which supports 10,000 such jobs. Sadly, the shipbuilding industry in Scotland has been in decline under both Conservative and new Labour stewardship. Meanwhile, small, independent countries are prospering.
Mr. Francois: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned Finland, can he give us some idea of the future Finnish naval shipbuilding programme and say how many 50,000 tonne aircraft carriers the Finns intend to build?
Pete Wishart: I am impressed with what Finland has achieved. Compare its 14,000 shipbuilding jobs with what is happening on the Clyde. The Finnish example is a good one.
The Scottish National party fully supports the commitment and professionalism of our service personnel and wishes the members of 45 Commando some of whose families live in my constituency-a safe and speedy return after the completion of their crucial mission.
Mr. Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the service men and women in Scotland. Will he give them an idea of his party's policy on membership of NATO, and will he answer some of the earlier questions that he has so far failed to deal with?
Pete Wishart: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to stand up and defend his Government's privatisation agenda, which is of genuine concern to service personnel throughout the United Kingdom. It is unfortunate that no Labour Member has tried to defend that policy.
We want an enhancement of our position within the emerging European defence architecture. Will the Minister say which Scottish regiments and what

195WH
manpower from Scotland have been committed to the European rapid reaction force? Is the number close to the 2,000 people that Finland and Austria have each promised?
We should aspire to a normal democratic Scotland, where the Parliament in Edinburgh makes key decisions about defence priorities and ensures the maximum economic benefit from Scottish tax spending for the national economy. It is sad that the defence debate has been dominated by Labour's agenda of unnecessary privatisation. I urge the Government to rethink their unpopular and unjustified policy.
10.29 am
John Thurso: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on securing this important debate. Like the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), I feel a degree of deja vu, having debated the subject in Scottish Grand Committee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) began the Liberal Democrat contribution in that debate by saying that he felt that there was some aggressive defence going on. I am delighted to see that that remains consistent, as there is some aggressive defence from the Scottish National party.
Mr. Lazarowicz: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman considers there to be an element of deja vu. However, does he not agree that the question of the future security and defence of Scotland is so important that it is correct to try to ascertain the policies of the major opposition party in Scotland?
John Thurso: Indeed I do, but it is more important to concentrate on one of the parties that is more likely to form a Government in the United Kingdom in the foreseeable future.
I intended to confine myself entirely to asking the Minister questions. I was not going to talk about the SNP at all. However, I cannot resist making one small point. The hon. Member for North Tayside mentioned a scramble for seats. In view of yesterday's news that the SNP's defence spokesman, Mr. Colin Campbell MSP, failed to secure the nomination for a seat for the Scottish Parliament, the scramble for seats in Scotland probably affects his party more than any other.
I turn to the serious subject before us—defence policy in Scotland. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, who opened the debate, mentioned the consultation on the new chapter of the strategic defence review. That is extremely important. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife and my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who have responsibility for those subjects, will engage fully in that process, and we will play our part.
Defence policy will revolve round what the United Kingdom chooses to do with regard to foreign policy. Our foreign policy objectives will be crucial in determining the shape of defence policy and the sort of forces we need. It is clear that we must have a strong and solid national debate, so that we can clearly define our aims, what we are asking our men and women to do
196WH
when we put them into theatres of conflict, and what kind of forces we need. The debate must begin with foreign policy.
Another aspect of the debate is the cost that we are prepared to bear. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will have a key role in ensuring that our troops and forces overseas are properly funded, so that they can undertake the role required of them. It seems to Opposition Members that that role can be played only from within a united kingdom. The United Kingdom is stronger for acting together on the issue. We must operate within NATO. Since the close of the second world war, NATO has developed in a way that has enabled it to show what it can do. Any suggestion that we should develop a policy without NATO is clearly unacceptable. We wholly support the Government in the prosecution of those strategies.
As has been mentioned, Scotland has a proud tradition of contributing to our military forces, on land, in sea and—most latterly—in the air. There is a strong link between regiments and particular parts of the country. Not long ago, I was reading a book called "The Sword of the North". It is worth remembering that in two major conflicts in the past century, my part of the world sent between eight and 10 battalions of Seaforth Highlanders to war. For a population of about 40,000, that is a significant contribution. Reading any war memorial in any small village in my constituency will clearly show the commitment of the north of Scotland, which the whole of Scotland shares, to our defence.
Those links continue to this day, with regimental associations and regiments that continue to serve proudly. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to the question about the shortfall in recruitment in Scottish regiments, which is running at about 10 per cent. below strength for the Scottish regiments, as opposed to about 6.5 per cent. for the rest of the Army, with the Royal Scots 17 per cent. undermanned, the Scots Dragoon Guards 15 per cent., and the Black Watch 13 per cent. Perhaps he would comment on the progress of the venture by SEARCH to recruit. I believe that it is up for review at the moment, and it would be helpful to hear about that.
Other links that have been referred to this morning are equally strong. The first is the jobs that come from defence procurement and all the equipment, which several hon. Members mentioned. There are also links with the bases. There are many bases in Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife has RAF Leuchars in his constituency. With the forthcoming disbandment at RAF Coningsby, I believe that No. 5 Squadron may be going to RAF Leuchars. I should be extremely grateful if the Minister would comment on that.
About 15,100 personnel are deployed throughout Scotland. That obviously has a huge economic impact, as well as being a core part of what goes on in our community. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) mentioned 45 Commando, and I add my support. I am sure that we all send our best wishes to the men and women there. I recently read newspaper reports of thefts from the home barracks of 45 Commando, which has been upsetting for those serving in Afghanistan. What action has been taken? Are the reports true or false?

197WH
The third link affects my constituency in particular, in that we have many of the disadvantages of military activity without the benefit. We have two major bombing ranges—a live one at Cape Wrath, and Tain. I hasten to add that my constituents fully understand the need for such ranges, and there is no question of their asking for them to be taken away. However, I ask the Minister to accept that in this modern day the relationship between the forces that use such facilities and the civilians who live there is crucial. Perhaps as part of the current review we might consider how that relationship can best be taken forward and what, if any, financial compensation could be given, perhaps to community councils, in such areas for what they put up with.
We broadly and fully support the Government's defence strategy and welcome the current review. It must he based on our foreign policy objectives and where we are going to go and what we are going to do. Finally, it must surely be up to the Chancellor to ensure that proper resources are available so that the objectives that we set in foreign policy mean that we have the best equipment to undertake the task.
10.39 am
Mr. James Gray: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). In a previous existence, I lived in the gardener's cottage at Skibo castle, and the bombers in the Tain run used my cottage as a turning point. He is right to say that the interrelationship between defence matters and local people is extremely important. In my constituency, where we have RAF Lyneham, which we intend to continue to have for a great many years to come, local people welcome the fact that the Harriers take off and land over their houses.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on securing the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on delivering my party's opening contribution. It is an important debate.
As a lifelong unionist, I initially found the title of the debate—defence in Scotland—slightly galling; after all, defence is a national matter, and I am proud to he the shadow defence Minister for the United Kingdom. However, I am a Scot born, bred and educated, and, on second thoughts, it occurred to me that I am, of course, immensely proud of the contribution that my home nation—as it were—makes to the defence of the realm. I use the word "realm" to refer to the United Kingdom, not Scotland. We are not discussing the defence of Scotland; we are talking about the defence of the United Kingdom, and the contribution that Scotland makes to that.
It used to be said that the first great export from Scotland was whisky, and that its second great export is people. I am proud to be one of those exports but, with regard to defence, precisely the same thing is happening. The current figures on deployments of the Scottish infantry regiments are interesting; 3,074 Scottish infantry are deployed in England and overseas, compared with only 1,656 who are still in Scotland. About twice as many Scottish infantry are abroad or in
198WH
England than are in Scotland. Among them is 45 Commando, as my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale memorably said— and other hon. Members also mentioned—and we think of its troops in particular, and of the contribution that they are currently making in Afghanistan.
It would be interesting to know how long they will remain on deployment in Afghanistan. It would be useful for people in Arbroath—wives, children and other family members of those troops—to know that. It would also be interesting to know which of the three infantry battalions that we believe are marked out to replace it, will do so. The Minister might like to comment on those matters.
Infantry is an area in which Scotland has made one of its greatest contributions to the defence of the realm. However, those of us who consider the matter on a national level are concerned about some of the plans that the Government might currently have with regard to the infantry battalions. As several hon. Members have mentioned, there is severe undermanning in some of the Scottish regiments. The Royal Scots are 17.4 per cent. undermanned; the Royal Highland Fusiliers are 12.3 per cent. down; the Black Watch are 13.6 per cent. down; the Highlanders are 17.9 per cent. down, and so forth. Interestingly, the Scots Guards is the only regiment that is currently overmanned—by 10.8 per cent.
When the Minister replies, it would be useful to know whether he has any plans with regard to the structure of the Scottish infantry regiments. At the sad time of the death of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, we were concerned about the amount of press speculation that her colonelcy of the Black Watch might have been one of the reasons why it had been preserved.
The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Oh, not again.
Mr. Gray: The Minister says, from a sedentary position, "Oh, not again," and raises his eyes heavenward. I would be more than satisfied if he were to give me a cast-iron, 100 per cent. guarantee that the Black Watch is safe in his hands now, and in future. Perhaps he would like to make an intervention on that now?
Mr. Ingram: I did not intend to intervene. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is continuing to raise that point. It is a canard that has been put to bed time and again. There are no plans to disband the Black Watch. Will his party now accept that?
Mr. Gray: The Minister uses weasel words, to say the least. He says that there are no plans to disband the Black Watch. I am ready to accept that there are currently no plans to disband it; it would be surprising if there were. However, I ask him again for the guarantee that I have requested; will he take this opportunity to give me a cast-iron guarantee that the Black Watch will not be disbanded now, or in the future? [Interruption.]
Hon. Members find that amusing, but I do not, and neither does the Black Watch. I am asking the Minister to give me that guarantee.
Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this speaking time; it is obvious that he does not have much to say in this debate.

199WH
I have given the hon. Gentleman that guarantee. I would be interested to learn whether, if his party were ever to return to power, he would plan to reinstate all of the regiments that the Conservatives disbanded when they were in government.
Mr. Gray: The Minister has now given us the guarantee. That will be on the record, and we are grateful to him for it. The people in and round my home area in Perth will also be grateful for that. We are glad that he has finally been forced to give that guarantee in the House.
Those who talk about cuts when we were in power forget that the Labour party spent the entire time after the end of the cold war saying that our cuts were not nearly deep enough. Of course, it is true that we had the peace dividend—as it was called—at the time, and that it was necessary for us to cut the size of the Army, for example.
I was speaking to a general the other day, and he told me that when he joined the British Army it had 1 million soldiers. Today, under this Labour Government, there are 98,000. Of course, many of the cuts took place under the Conservative Government, but at the time, members of the Labour party said that the cuts were not deep enough and that they wanted to see more.
If we want to see evidence of defence cuts, we need look only at what the Labour Government are doing. They have cut the Territorial Army to shreds in Scotland, as elsewhere. We discussed defence manufacturing, but look at what they are doing to ammunition manufacturing. We can no longer make ammunition. We leave it to the Germans, Belgians and, amazingly, the South Africans. Bishopton closed as a result. Elsewhere, it looks as though their commitment to carriers seems firm, but look at the closure of 5 Squadron. It may go to RAF Leuchars—good luck to Leuchars. What about the people around 5 Squadron?
The mothballing of the Sea Harriers means that we could not now carry out a Falkland campaign even if we wished to do so. To suggest that that capability will be replaced by type 45s is nonsense, not least because type 45s will not be fully operational until 2015. There will be a big gap between the mothballing of the Sea Harriers and the introduction of the type 45s.
"Illustrious" is the latest example. It has been delayed for nine months until a refit starts in October. "Fearless" has been withdrawn from service 12 months early. There have been 700 jobs cut from the Army base repair organisation. That information was slipped out during a statutory instrument debate recently. The Minister says that that is all good stuff and marvellous and that it is all to do with a training fund, but the jobs of 700 car mechanics who work on army vehicles have been cut, thanks to the Government.
In the Conservative party, we are opposed to the privatisation of warship support that has been mentioned and the privatisation of airbase fire services at RAF Leuchars and elsewhere. The only point on which I agree with the SNP on this issue is that we are entirely opposed to the privatisation of defence fire services. It is astonishing to hear a Labour Government proposing such a thing. The Minister laughs and says that he is thinking about it. Let him tell us whether he intends to privatise the fire services.
200WH
Wherever we look at what Labour is doing to defence, we see cuts, cuts and more cuts, often for minute amounts of money. The Government may save a million here or a million there, but in the course of doing that, they make damaging cuts to defence capabilities throughout the nation. That becomes clear when we examine the Government's procurement programmes. As far as we can see, the procurement budgets in the Ministry of Defence are a shambles. For the past two years, the National Audit Office has refused to sign off the MOD budgets in a straightforward way. No commercial company would be allowed to continue to exist in the same circumstances. It is apparent that the MOD's procurement proposals cannot be implemented unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer provides more money.
One curious feature about last week's Budget is that no mention was made of defence. In an internet search of the Chancellor's speeches since 1997, he does not use the word "defence" once. It is impossible to discover the increase in defence spending from reading the Red Book after the Budget. It seems to be approximately £950 million, but it is hard to tell whether that is a straightforward increase.
Mr. Joyce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: No. There is no time before the Minister replies. He can tell us how much extra the Chancellor has given him, but as far as we can make out from a detailed study of the Red Book, it ain't a lot. We find that procurement spending as well as everyday spending on defence is under severe pressure. That is why we see cuts across the board.
Of course, our defence forces will, as they say, turn to the right, salute, march off and do precisely whatever the Minister asks. They will not complain. Our Army, Air Force and Navy do what they are required to do. However, they are being asked to do more and more with less and less by this ever expansionist Prime Minister. The Government must not take advantage of their readiness to do whatever is asked of them, by demanding more and not providing the proper resources with which to carry out difficult tasks.
10.49 am
The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I echo the congratulations paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on securing this debate. He and other hon. Members have raised important issues. I do not share the view that this is deja vu and that we should not continue to examine and rerun these issues. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who made that comment, should reflect wisely on it. Our debates add to the overall assessment of what is happening on defence, which is a critical part of what happens to this country.
Scotland and its people play an important part in the defence of the United Kingdom. Although there have been many changes in defence policy over the years, the one constant has been the importance of Scotland in defending the United Kingdom's overall interests. Defence continues to play a vital role in Scotland.
Defence has a considerable footprint in Scotland. I contend that Scotland receives a good deal from defence and gives a good deal in return. My hon. Friend the

201WH
Member for Greenock and Inverclyde rightly referred to the number of sites that the Ministry of Defence has in Scotland. There are 374 sites that extend over nearly 25,000 hectares. Our policy is to achieve a better balance of activity throughout the United Kingdom. All three services are well represented as part of the overall defence footprint throughout Scotland.
Hon. Members referred to 45 Royal Marine Commando, which is based in Arbroath. That represents a significant presence of about 1,000 Royal Marines, to whom I shall refer, if I have time. The Royal Navy submarine base at Faslane is one of the largest single-site employers in Scotland and employs more than 15 per cent. of the local economically active members of the population.
Mr. McFall: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Ingram: I must try to deal with all the points. I shall address warship support and modernisation and perhaps, at that point, I shall allow my hon. Friend to intervene.
Under the new arrangements of partnership with a commercial company at Faslane, the base will remain a significant employer, and I shall say more about that later. The naval reactor test establishment at Dounreay employs more than 300 people in one of the remoter parts of Scotland. That gives a flavour of the naval presence.
I shall touch on the presence of the Army. Several major Army units are based in Scotland: the 1st Battalion of the Royal Highland Fusiliers is based at Fort George in Inverness; the 1st Battalion of the Highlanders is based in Edinburgh; and the Royal Scots are based at Dreghorn barracks in Edinburgh. That represents the first incidence for a considerable time that three of the six Scottish regiments have been based in Scotland.
I take arguments about poor recruitment on board. Scotland has a proud record of providing recruits for the services. Last year, Scottish recruitment offices enlisted 2,5000 officers and other ranks, which is more than 15 per cent. of the total number. Nearly 12 per cent. of people in the Army classify themselves as being of Scottish nationality. A proud history and record has been maintained against difficult backdrops. Clearly, retention is important, and we recognise that we must do better and do more on retention. However, I will not accept criticism of what the Government have tried to do. We have innumerable initiatives to try to solve deep and entrenched problems, and I could set out all such initiatives in the remainder of my speech—they have all had measures of success.
A large aspect of retention relates to families, and not only to those who serve. That is why I head a cross-departmental committee of Ministers—the service families taskforce—that addresses ways in which we can drive forward initiatives from government.
I shall write to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross to answer his specific question about SEARCH. We are still assessing the important initiative, and it is too early to say what its outplay will be.
202WH
I shall address the role of the Royal Air Force. RAF Kinloss is home to our Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft. Leuchars and Lossiemouth are home to our Tornado F3 and Tornado GR4 aircraft. Under current plans, Typhoon will replace the Tornados at Leuchars. Royal Navy and RAF search-and-rescue helicopters are based at Prestwick and Lossiemouth. Those sites are important to our defence role and mission, and they play an important part in our local economies. RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss, for example, employ almost 10 per cent. of the working people in their areas.
I do not intend to spend any time addressing the comments of the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), other than to make a passing reference. The Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy would not be that if we had an independent Scotland. The Royal Marines would not be in Arbroath if we had an independent Scotland. When the Scottish National party claims to support the action taken by our armed forces against international terrorism in Sierra Leone, Macedonia, Kosovo and elsewhere, we should bear in mind that they would not have that prominent role if Scotland were independent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that on board.
More than 23,000 MOD personnel work in Scotland in 27 of the 32 unitary authorities. That includes more than 14,400 military personnel from all three services and more than 8,800 civilians. Almost 10 per cent. of MOD personnel who work in the UK do so in Scotland. Approximately 6,000 Scottish jobs are directly dependent on defence equipment expenditure. Most of the jobs are skilled, with pay rates above the Scottish national average.
It has been said that defence cannot be divided, and that must be repeated. Defence does not benefit some members of the UK more than others. It is there to protect us and to provide us all with security wherever we may be. It is not like health or education, where spending on a hospital benefits one local community. Defence benefits the whole of the UK, wherever it occurs. The hon. Member for North Tayside repeated old arguments about the totality of defence expenditure in Scotland. I thought that I had laid that argument to rest at the last debate of the Scottish Grand Committee. His figures are wrong, and he should re-examine the information with which he was provided. The expenditure is much greater than the £600 million figure that he presented: a conservative estimate is £1.8 billion. Much of that is not captured because of the way in which the spend is allocated.
The shipbuilding industry is a key part of defence spend. The Government plan to build up to 30 warships in the UK over the next 15 to 20 years. That is the biggest shipbuilding programme since the second world war. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) declared his support for, and commitment to, the Clyde. I am reminded of a line from an old song, "It was tears that made the Clyde." It is almost as if the MOD is saving the Clyde. I know that my hon. Friend will support me when I say that the shipbuilding companies must also move into commercial shipbuilding initiatives.
Warship support and modernisation has attracted much debate outside the Chamber, but not inside it.
Mr. McFall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his involvement in negotiations over the past few days on

203WH
the changing nature of the jobs at Faslane. On Monday morning, I had a meeting with John Howie, the managing director of Babcocks. It was made clear that there was a need to change the perception that there would be massive losses, as they could be accommodated over five years. Does the Minister agree that the Astute-class submarines berthing at Faslane would enhance its position and increase its capacity if we were to get the negotiations right with the trade unions?
Mr. Ingram: Part of the tragedy of the debate is that people have taken the lurid newspaper headlines and tried to perceive them as reality. They should learn the lesson that newspapers do not necessarily speak the truth. We tried to explain what was happening at the dockyards. In the worst-case scenario, 750 jobs would go over five years. We concluded intensive discussions with the trade unions that will ensure a good future for all the dockyards including Rosyth, not just the three dockyards that will retain their partnership with the MOD. It is worth bearing in mind that Rosyth is a wholly privatised dockyard that provides a tremendous service to the MOD. There should be no fear. Jobs can be retained if there is a workflow, but we must address overcapacity in the yards.
The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale asked about naval support in an emergency, and I can give him an assurance. We have retained a four-yard strategy to ensure that we have that maximum surge capacity if it is required.
Finally, an examination of airfield support services is taking place. I accept that there is a united front against it, but it is a united front against something that has not yet been presented.

Tourism (South-West)
11 am
Mr. John Butterfill: I am delighted to have this opportunity to debate such an important subject. I am also pleased to have the support of so many of my Conservative colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who is sitting next to me. Many hon. Members from all parties want to speak, so I shall speak so far as it relates to Bournemouth for both of us. My hon. Friend wants to be firmly associated with my comments.
Tourism is very important to the economy of the United Kingdom and the south-west in particular. It is the country's fourth largest industry and earns about £75 billion a year for the UK economy. The south-west is one of the regions most dependent on tourism as a percentage of its overall economic activity. Bournemouth, part of which I have the honour to represent, earns £500 million a year from tourism. We welcome 5 million visitors a year and employ in tourism 20,000 people. That gives some background to the scale of our subject.
Much as I admire the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, the Government have not given the support to tourism that they promised. We have had constant platitudes but no delivery. For example, there has been no help with marketing. The Scottish tourist board spends £19.4 million on marketing, which is £3.77 per head. The Wales tourist board spends £15.5 million, which is £4.03 per head. The English tourist board and the regional tourist boards combined receive only £11.7 million from the Government; the actual spend is 20p per head. That gives us some idea of the scale of the problem for England and the south-west in particular.
We no longer have an English tourist board with the responsibility to promote tourism in England, and we should revert to that. We are told that the British Tourist Authority does a lot of work that benefits England. However, in its latest UKOK campaign, which was supposed to support the south-east and south-west of England, it managed to miss out any mention of Dorset, Bournemouth and the New forest, despite the fact that we have England's first world heritage coastline and that the New forest is a national park of outstanding importance. The New forest was the only national park not mentioned in the campaign. The Government's record on support for marketing is tragic.
We should also consider support for local authorities. Resorts should be able, and encouraged, to improve their visitor facilities. We should ensure that visitors to resorts in the south-west find the amenities that they are entitled to expect. They should be at least comparable with those of our major overseas competitors. What is the Government's record in relation to resort towns? I am a vice-president of the British Resorts Association, and we have repeatedly had to tell the Government that we are not receiving anything like adequate support. The way in which the Government's subvention to local authorities in general and resort towns in particular is organised, discriminates against resorts. More and more burdens have been imposed on tourist towns through increased regulations and requests to take more asylum seekers and to set up drug rehabilitation centres, which we in Bournemouth and other resorts have done.

205WH
The resorts and the south-west in general have a disproportionately high number of retired people. The problems of the elderly impact most severely on many resort towns, but the support that we receive for them is declining. Bournemouth has lost £3 million of support for rest homes every year since the Government came to power. Overall, Government support for Bournemouth has gone down from 73 per cent. in 1997 to 65.8 per cent. now. We have lost £13 million in Bournemouth alone. That is mirrored in resorts throughout the country and in the south-west in particular.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be as concerned as I am that the seaside and market towns scheme, which looked like a good scheme, has run into the ground because it has been stop go, stop go. Bureaucracy has been added to it. Some towns that started out on the scheme with a lot of enthusiasm have now backed off. There does not seem to be any clarity about how the scheme works and how it can be taken forward. It has done more harm than good because of the way in which it has been administered.
Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. She is absolutely right. Often, the Government have ideas that sound terribly good, but at the end of the day they do not deliver. How on earth are we supposed to support tourism facilities within our resorts if we are not given the financial support that increasing Government burdens demand?
Mr. Anthony Steen: My hon. Friend, in his inimitable way, puts forward a cogent and powerful case. The reduction in Government expenditure to Bournemouth is mirrored in Torbay, Torquay, Paignton and Brixham. Does he agree that the Government's insistence on audits means that, instead of going to seaside towns, money is being used on audits of every conceivable kind? There is more bureaucracy and more intervention from the centre.
Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the new stealth tax. There have been huge reductions in Government support for major towns, particularly resort towns, throughout the south-west. Because the Government are giving us less, we have to raise revenue through council tax to maintain anything like adequate support facilities. Expenditure in Bournemouth has increased by less than 2.3 per cent. a year in each of the years that the Government have been in power. That is less than the rate of inflation over the same period. However, we have had to increase our council tax by over 10 per cent. this year. That is an absolute disgrace. The Government hope that the electors will blame our councillors, who are doing a cracking job, but they may find in the local elections up and down the country that they have been rumbled on that new stealth tax.
One of the many other points that I wish to deal with is infrastructure and infrastructure investment. The south-west is suffering incredibly badly. We have heard what happens in Scotland. Other regions have had huge investment from the Government, but the south-west
206WH
has had almost no serious infrastructure investment. That wonderful organisation Railtrack, for example, managed to close the Devon-Cornwall rail bridge at Easter, just when visitors were coming back after foot and mouth. There are no rail links from Dorset to Exeter, the supposed seat of the regional government.
Mr. Hugo Swire: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Devon to Cornwall line was closed over Easter and the Exeter to Plymouth line will be closed for four weeks in May, which is likely to cost the region up to £20 billion in lost revenue?
Mr. Butterfill: I was indeed aware of that, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing it to our attention.
Anyone wanting to go from Bournemouth or any of the south-east Dorset conurbations to the putative seat of regional government, which the Government are so keen on, would have to go back on the railway line as far as Basingstoke, wait there for another train and go back in the other direction. It is complete and utter nonsense to say that it is part of the region. It takes one and a half hours to get to London and two and a half hours to get to Exeter. There are no railway lines at all to Bristol and the north.
As for roads, there is the main south-west spine, the A30-A303, which is supposed to bring tourists from London and the major conurbations, but it is still not dualled, despite protestations that that would be done. Anyone who wants to go from Bournemouth to Exeter by road must travel from Dorchester onwards on the mediaeval cart track that dignifies itself with the name the A31. The Highways Agency has just published a report about what it intends to do about the road.
Jim Knight: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) opposes trunk road status beyond Dorchester because he does not want the traffic rumbling through the villages in his constituency?
Mr. Butterfill: Nimbyism exists in every part of the House, especially among the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I followed with interest the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the result of the privatisation of the rail industry, which he voted for. The dualling of the A30 in Cornwall, which is a serious issue, was delayed by the Government whom he supported. We are only now getting back to where we were 10 years ago.
Mr. Butterfill: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but we must move on. The Government have been in power since 1997 and they said that they would change all that. They have failed to do so and have often been supported by the Liberal Democrats.
There are no links to the north on the A350 from Dorset; to describe many parts of that road as a mediaeval cart track would be charitable. From Bournemouth and its conurbations, the only way to go north is on the M27 to the M3, then up the M3 to pick up the A34. Torbay still needs the Kingkerswell bypass

207WH
and the new bridge crossing at Barnstaple is still outstanding—delays that are supported by the iberal Democrats.
The wonderful regional government based in Exeter is beloved of the Liberal Democrats, but the problem is that the boundaries do not relate to any form of economic activity or to the infrastructure. We are doing the best we can about that. We have good relations with the poor people who are charged with making progress. That is the only way to go forward, but what is needed is a properly defined role for the agencies and an interrelationship with Government Departments, which is still lacking.
Agriculture and tourism are the lynchpins of the south-west economy; they play a vital part in everything that goes on there. However, we have had no real Government initiatives to support or encourage rural tourism. I know that a number of my hon. Friends will speak much more lucidly on that issue than I can, because they represent rural constituencies.
With regard to our international competition, we have some of the best destinations in Europe. However, we often do not qualify for European aid or regeneration grants; Bournemouth is an example. Those grants go to other competitor resorts. In addition, VAT is higher in the UK than in many continental competitor countries, and the Government have now imposed on the industry the working time directive.
That is another wonderful European idea, which is supported of course by the Liberal Democrats, who love everything that comes from Brussels. Far more important, however, is the way in which the 48-hour restriction affects shift patterns. The hospitality industry, among others, has to operate 24 hours a day, a fact that the Government seem not to realise. We have to look after our visitors all day, every day—24 hours a day, seven days a week. That imposes shift patterns, but those are in no way recognised by the nonsense to which the Government have agreed.
Mr. Robert Syms: My hon. Friend will have noted in the Budget the increase in national insurance contributions for employers. That will have a major impact on the tourism industry, which employs many people in the Bournemouth and Poole area, and will be detrimental to its business prospects.
Mr. Butterfill: The increase will be hugely damaging. The Government do not understand that national insurance increases impact particularly severely on industries and businesses that are already in great difficulty, on the margin, not making profits and struggling to stay alive. That applies throughout the south-west, particularly after foot and mouth. The increase is the equivalent of a 3 per cent. rise in corporation tax. Of course if it had been a tax increase, the businesses that are not making profits anyway would not have been affected. The increase in national insurance contributions, however, will probably ensure that some of them fail.
Jim Knight: I do not wish to rehearse the whole Budget debate, but surely the hon. Gentleman welcomes the use of national insurance for the sake of the many pensioners whom he talked about earlier. They have
208WH
already paid for the national health service during their working lives, and will reap the benefits of the extra investment without having to pay any extra: the increase is not in tax, but in national insurance.
Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman is right, but pensioners do not pay corporation tax either. My point is that the measure could have been targeted much more effectively to support the industries in his constituency that I am sure he, too, holds dear.
I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be brief. Throughout the south-west, language schools are a success story. Every year, 30,000 students come to Bournemouth alone to learn English as a foreign language. However, they have terrible problems with the Government when it comes to getting visas. People come to me repeatedly from the Association of Recognised English Language Services, saying that they cannot get their students into the country because of the enormous delays in Departments and at Lunar house—lunatic house, some people call it. The system is supposed to be administered there, but the delays run into months and months.
If students want to extend their stay so that they can take a further course, they cannot get permission to do so. They cannot go home for Christmas either, because if they do so, they will not be let back in. The situation is complete madness. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to the problems, but more must be done. If we are to have joined-up government, we should be able to make better arrangements for such educational purposes, particularly for the people whom we have already let in.
One of the final indignities involves the British Council. It does a wonderful job in the countries where it operates, but it should not set up English language courses subsidised by the Government in those countries. Such courses take business away from language schools in this country. I hope that the Government will make that clear to the British Council.
There is a great tourist industry in the south-west. Bournemouth is a world-class resort, but we need a little more support and a little more joined-up government. I hope that the Minister can do something about that.
11.20 am
Jim Knight: I should declare that I am a trustee of the Tank museum, an important tourist attraction in the south-west.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) on securing this important debate, which gives us a valuable opportunity to discuss important issues for a crucial industry in our region. Her Majesty the Queen is in Falmouth today launching her golden jubilee tour of the country. That is one reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) could not be here, although she would have liked to be.
Mr. James Gray: Where are the rest of them?
Jim Knight: I cannot account for everyone, but I was specifically asked to pass on apologies from my hon.

209WH
Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne. Many of the dynamic team of Labour Members in the south-west are Ministers, have other responsibilities and find it difficult to attend.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West talked about the importance of tourism to the country and the south-west. It accounts for 10 per cent. of that region's gross domestic product. The spending that tourism generates is equivalent to £1,150 per resident of the region, so it is clearly of huge significance. It is the same size as the tourist industries of Wales and Scotland combined. We in the south-west would be most grateful if we received the £34.8 million that their tourist boards received in subsidy from the Government, but I suspect that we are being a little optimistic in hoping to receive that.
Mrs. Browning: I have a lot of sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman says, but is he making a proposal for the Barnett formula to be revisited?
Jim Knight: I am grateful for that most helpful contribution. I do not want to re-rehearse the Barnett formula. I hope that the formula is named after my predecessor, the only other Labour Member for South Dorset, Guy Barnett, although I should know whether that is so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Joel Barnett."] Never mind. At least I had a chance to plug Guy Barnett.
I am privileged to represent South Dorset. The traditional seaside tourism industry is crucial in Weymouth and Swanage, which is in my patch. We have heard how important it is to Bournemouth from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West. Tourism is becoming much more important in the countryside, as is environmental tourism. The previous time I spoke in Westminster Hall we debated world heritage status. I talked at some length about the importance of world heritage coast status not only to South Dorset but to the whole area. I am sure that if the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) makes a contribution, he will mention its importance to Devon.
The tourism industry, important as it is, does not have a loud enough voice. That is one of the reasons why I welcome this debate. If tourism had the strength of voice that the farming industry has through the National Farmers Union, for example, some of the issues that we want to address today might be higher up the public agenda. Perhaps if we had the strength of such a lobby, there would be more support for the tourism industry, which is what I am sure most of us will be arguing for today. Given that the voice of the industry is not as loud as I would like it to be, this is an opportunity to question the Minister on its behalf.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: Given the importance of the voice of tourism, will the hon. Gentleman recommend to his party that the seaside group of MPs should be broadened to become an all-party group and not be the exclusive domain of Labour MPs?
Jim Knight: I am sure that it would be open to hon. Members to form an all-party group. I would be happy to support it. There is value in Labour Members holding
210WH
private discussions, but I am sure that it would also be helpful to have discussions on an all-party basis. There is no doubt that the Labour group has done good work on behalf of seaside towns, and that such information has been passed on to the all-party tourism group.
Does the Department view tourism as a domestic industrial issue, which it is, or as an industry that is just about attracting inward visitors? The balance of payments deficit for tourism has now increased to £12 billion a year. That is a huge gap. Given the proposal for schools to have six terms, I wonder whether the Department has listened properly to the voice of our domestic tourism industry. For example, Monkey World is an excellent tourist attraction in my constituency. I have received faxes galore from it about the proposal. The weather in this country is neither reliable nor perfect and Monkey World is worried that restricting the summer holiday to five weeks could have a significant impact on its business. It could cope, because there are other aspects of the business, but it is concerned about some of the smaller outlets, such as Farmer Giles' farm, the family farm that people can visit to understand agriculture. If we contract the tourism season, smaller businesses could suffer.
Our traditional seaside tourism industry relies on good weather and a long summer holiday to make the vast bulk of its income. A contraction of the summer holiday may cause significant damage to some of its businesses. I should be interested to know whether the Minister has discussed such matters with his colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills and what the outcome was. Schools in other countries, such as France, for example, are out for specific winter weeks. The winter sports industry can benefit from that. If the Government have five or six school terms, surely holidays could be arranged to benefit the tourism industry. I should be interested to know whether that will happen.
Are the needs of the tourism industry dealt with by all the Departments? I know that the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and his Department focus well on the tourism industry and I am sure that they are doing their best to broaden that throughout the Government, but it important that other Departments pay due attention to it. I have spoken previously about the world heritage coast in the belief that that Minister had responsibility for that coast. To my embarrassment, I found out that the Minister with responsibility was my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs.
I am grateful to the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting for visiting the area. He has walked along part of the coast in west Dorset, and I am sure that he will represent the interests of the world heritage coast well. However, only a few of the points that I raised in my contribution on world heritage status—such as improving the standard of accommodation and of access through better transport, and the things that must be dealt with to allow the world heritage coast to prosper—are necessarily issues for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Some of them would be better addressed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and others by a variety of other Departments.
I have mentioned the school term issue facing the Department for Education and Skills. It is also responsible for further education. Increasing the level of

211WH
skill among workers in tourism is an important matter for the industry. The further education sector is somewhat undernourished at present. We are seeing some of the cost of that in my area. Weymouth college is suffering significant financial difficulties—I have been talking at length to lecturers there.
We need that sector to prosper. We need it to focus on making better links with the economic development strategies of our local authorities to deal with things such as skills gaps in our industries. I know some good work is being done: Bournemouth university has just started a degree course that includes sports management, particularly golf management. Work is being done in education, but that needs to be extended. In the local care sector in Dorset, excellent work is being done to deal with the skills gaps.
I turn to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The funding to local authorities has been mentioned. It is historically low in Dorset. It is too low; it is unfair. There is something wrong with the funding formula, and we are hopeful that that will be dealt with by the Department this year.
We need to ensure that our local authorities have a better settlement so that they can fully carry out those of their responsibilities that have an impact on our tourism industry. For example, we are trying to encourage some of our farmers to diversify into equestrian facilities. That should be developed, as it is an important element of the tourism industry in our countryside. However, our local authorities are struggling to ensure that our bridleways are properly maintained. My wife and daughter are regular horse riders. In the area where I live, it is a great problem for them properly to enjoy the Dorset coast on horseback, because bridleways are not properly maintained, and they are not connected to make decent routes. I would love the local authority to be given the funding to enable it to resolve that issue. That is just one example of the point that I am making.
Infrastructure is largely a responsibility of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I have talked about heritage coast access, and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West talked at length about the infrastructure problems in the southwest. I sympathise with what he said. That must be improved, and the Department must make it a priority.
I turn to the Department for Trade and Industry. Monkey World is keen to see an improvement in the appalling broadband access in our area. It is the only primate rescue centre in Europe, and there is considerable interest in it from educational establishments. They wish to be able to follow and monitor what is going on with the primates that it looks after. It is now working with the learning and skills council and others to get some broadband access.
South West Tourism agrees with me that it is important that we see an improvement in e-tourism, so that people can book online, and understand what the area has to offer online, prior to visiting the area.
The regional development agency is the responsibility of the Department for Trade and Industry, and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister feels that it is properly addressing tourism. There is some evidence of that locally. The RDA is supporting Portland and understands that extending and improving the sailing
212WH
facilities in the area is vital. That is contributing hugely to improvements in the number of visitors coming, and considerably extending the season.
The Government have made good progress on tourism as a whole, especially in improving the economy. The fact that we have such low unemployment and inflation and that economically we are doing well means that people have more money in their pockets to spend, are out visiting things and coming to our region. Tourism is doing reasonably well. The introduction of the minimum wage ensured that the lowest paid people, who are the most likely to want to enjoy our seaside tourism industry, had more money in their pockets, more disposable income and could come to enjoy bucket and spade holidays on Weymouth beach.
The "Your countryside, you're welcome" initiative has been a success, and my final plea is for more such initiatives. For every pound that the Government spent on it, £30 was generated in bookings in the region. The Treasury gains 30 per cent. of that income. For every pound that is put in, the Treasury gains many times over.
I wish the Minister every good fortune in the comprehensive spending review to ensure that he secures more money for tourism and that, instead of spending more in Wales and Scotland, which receive enough, we spend it in the south-west.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that I intend to call the three Front-Bench spokesmen at 12 o'clock. Four people are standing. If they confine themselves to five or six minutes, we can fit everyone in.
11.36 am
Dr. Andrew Murrison: Thank you, Mr. Taylor, for calling me to speak in this important debate for the economy of the south-west.
I shall first discuss the south-west as an artificial construct. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) mentioned that his constituency had few links with Exeter. Mine has a few more, but not many.
In a previous debate in this Chamber, the Liberal Democrat spokesman accused me of being a Wessex regionalist. I shall speak a little about Wessex, if only because I am terribly proud that my constituency contains the site of the battle of Ethandune, where King Alfred saw off the Vikings and where he established—[Interruption.] That may be disputed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), but we can safely say that the battle of Ethandune took place in my constituency, which is where Alfred established his kingdom, which became England. It is an extremely good tourist destination, and hon. Members who have not visited the site must do so, if only to improve the local economy.
Tourists do not visit regional tourist board areas. They may go on their holidays to the Chilterns, the Cotswolds or the highlands and islands, but they do not say to themselves, "Let's go to the English Tourism

213WH
Council south-west region this year." Administrative boundaries are an irrelevance and a distraction in the context of today's debate. Last night, I asked the director of the fledgling Wessex Tourism Association to define his borders, but he was not much bothered. He said that, for the purposes of his business, he was dealing with Hampshire, Wiltshire, Dorset and Somerset, with a bit of Berkshire thrown in. What concerned him was establishing a sense of place, and what interested him as a business man was how to brand the area that he liked to call Wessex and how to sell it not only to the UK market, but, more importantly, to international tour operators. Selling holidays to one another is fine, but we need to attract foreign visitors to the country in the interests of the economy.
In the south-west, although the number of UK visitors has increased slightly, and the number of nights spent in the south-west has increased, by even less than that, the number of overseas visitors has declined over the past five years. That cannot be blamed only on foot and mouth and the tragic events of 11 September because the decline started well before that.
Structural arrangements to support tourism could be inadequate, and we have heard about arrangements for marketing. Local government's statutory tasks are underfunded, and funding for tourism will always be a low priority because it is difficult to define a return on the investment in a way that would satisfy elected local authorities. That is reflected right the way up, because tourism is only a small part of the remit of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is hardly a leviathan. That is a great shame because UK tourism generated £75 billion in 2000, which is about four times the amount of revenue generated by agriculture.
The tourism sector remains disproportionately significant in the south-west despite the ravages of foot and mouth. The sector is surprisingly hidden, partly because it is so disparate and fragmentary. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) commented on that and noted that no effective voice is heard from the industry.
A chief brake on the sector has undoubtedly been its skills base. Traditionally, it relied on low-skilled staff on low pay who probably had a fairly low status and did not mind working antisocial hours or putting up with poor career prospects. Although the inevitable service product may have been acceptable to the United Kingdom market at one time, it is no longer because people demand higher quality. The product is certainly not acceptable to our overseas visitors.
Many colleges have put on imaginative courses. However, we are dealing exclusively with small and medium enterprises that, in times of financial hardship, experience great difficulty investing in the skills of their staff because of the marginal nature of their business. When times get hard, such enterprises must inevitably make difficult choices, and one choice is how much to invest in staff.
I hope that the newly formed Sector Skills Council will deal with such issues. The SSC for travel, tourism and hospitality has an ambitious remit. We are told that it will reduce skills gaps and shortages, improve
214WH
productivity and increase opportunities to boost the skills and productivity of everyone in the sector's work force. It will also improve the learning supply, which will include apprenticeships, further and higher education and national occupational standards. It will achieve that by assessing the labour and skills market, identifying strategies for action and working with all those involved in the fields of training and education in order to deliver solutions. That sounds grand, but it reminded me of the British Telecom business solutions advertisement that talks about "imagineering".
The project sounds very vague, and I was especially worried when I heard that the Government would pay up to £1 million of match funding to support it. The match funding will come from employers. Given the project's ambitious remit, I do not know how £2 million will cover the task. I am unclear how the money will be extracted from employers, and I shall welcome the Minister's comments
11.43 am
Diana Organ: I am supporting the debate secured by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) because my south-west constituency is unusual. Most south-west Members present represent coastal towns, but my constituency contains a beautiful forest surrounded by beautiful rivers and has a landscape to die for. We have tourist attractions slightly different from piers and bucket-and-spade holidays.
The Government have recognised our landscape. We received £1 million from the Countryside Agency to secure environmental development that goes hand in hand with economic and social development. That has been successful in promoting our area and giving it a type of brand.
Along with most of the south-west, last year we suffered the devastating effects of the foot and mouth outbreak. The Forest of Dean had a difficult time, because there were 47 confirmed cases and the whole landscape was closed. That had a major impact. Our outdoor centres were closed, as was access to rivers for canoeing and other water sports. Our forest was closed, so school trips were cancelled because nobody could access the landscape to enjoy any activity. Our youth hostels and campsites were closed. Only this spring did we start to remarket our youth hostels, when the Minister visited and walked a little of Offa's Dyke as part of the "Your countryside, you're welcome" initiative, to advertise the fact that places had re-opened. We were devastated.
It was not until we experienced the closure of the countryside that we recognised the inextricable link between agriculture and tourism. We had thought that tourism was something that involved London, the coastal resorts or, possibly, walking in the Cotswolds, and that agriculture was something different. We had not realised how linked the two activities were.
We had not really noticed what tourism was. No Government—neither the previous Conservative Government nor the present Government—had bothered to support it in our area, because it had flourished. The number of jobs had increased—one in four new jobs since 1997 were in the tourism sector. Our

215WH
tourism had done okay on its own. It was a patchwork of large and small businesses. Consequently, we had never really looked at the sector in detail, or at a strategy. There were no training initiatives for the industry, and we had not examined how we could develop and support it. That is what we must do now. The good thing that could come out of the foot and mouth outbreak would be taking forward the strategy and the training.
In a small way we have started to move forward in the Forest of Dean. We have been one of the most successful districts in the south-west in obtaining grants from the Government after foot and mouth to help us remarket the area. We have had a fantastic response. We set up a light show at Beechenhurst on the sculpture trail, and 45,000 people visited it. We were expecting 4,000 or 5,000 cars to come, but we had 10 times that number of people. A little marketing, advertising and promotion and we had a huge response. That is the way forward.
We also had a food fair in Speech house to promote local produce, reflecting the link between agriculture and tourism. We have given grants to individual companies such as canoe companies, to get them restarted. There are outdoor experiment companies such as Motiva, in which people climb ropes. Presumably Monkey World, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) could have something to do with that. With the little money that is coming through, we are starting to build and develop.
We have considered the problems sporadically. The Government have not completely ignored the sector. Hon. Members have mentioned the minimum wage, and we have talked about how the growth of the economy has meant that more people can use the tourism sector. The minimum wage was crucial in lifting wage levels in a sector in which pay was traditionally very low.
Mr. Swire: I am not aware that anyone else has mentioned the minimum wage today. We talked about national insurance, and the hon. Lady should be aware that an average firm employing 10 people, which in my part of the west country means an enormous number of firms, will have an increased NI bill of £2,361 as a result of the Budget. That is the problem that we were drawing attention to, not the minimum wage.
Diana Organ: I am more concerned about the vast numbers of people who work in the sector. They had a rough time until the introduction of the minimum wage because they were poorly paid.
We have also developed training initiatives. The new targets are vocational training courses in colleges, and the ability to tell people that they should stay in either full-time training or education until the age of 19 will help develop that area of training for the sector.
As we have said this morning, the key issue is to promote and market the sector in the south-west if we want it to recover and develop. The Forest of Dean used to be covered by the Heart of England tourist board, but because of recent changes, we are being taken over by the South West Tourism. I am happy about that, because I was visited by the chair of the board, Cairns Boston, who I believe is in the Chamber today as an observer. He asked me how we could bring together
216WH
local people and tell them about the SWT. We organised a conference at Speech house at which South West Tourism told many members of the sector about its services, including market research and advertising support. Most of us were impressed, although we found its budget laughable.
Mr David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady drew her remarks to a close to allow other speakers to contribute.
Diana Organ: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
The marketing budget of South West Tourism and other tourist offices and local councils is too small. My only plea to the Minister is that more resources for specialised marketing should go into those areas of the south-west where tourism needs to recover from the devastation of last summer's foot and mouth.
11.51 am
Mr. Colin Breed: We have developed a clear strategy for tourism in the far southwest in the past few years. We have tried to promote quality and professionalism and make the industry less seasonal so that it can provide us with full-time, well paid rather than part-time, seasonal jobs. We have also tried to create a targeted and co-ordinated marketing campaign to drive up the number of visitors who will spend money in and bring economic benefits to our region.
There are three aspects in which the Government can assist the process. First, planning guidance must move away from considering only land use to examining all resources, so that decisions can be taken in the context of an economic environment. Individual planning applications should not be accepted without considering the total economic context that we want. One simple but rather silly example concerns the use of brown signs to promote attractions and direct people to them. It is an absolute minefield of bureaucracy and stupidity. For a couple of hundred pounds' worth of signs, we must go through an amazing plethora of decision making.
Secondly, hon. Members have mentioned rail delays when talking about infrastructure. There will be delays on roads, too, and we all accept that, but timing is crucial. Is it not possible to involve elected representatives in ensuring that when programmes are made for rail or road infrastructure improvements, they take into account the needs of the tourism industry, including their possible economic benefits? Even if it will cost a bit more to repair a certain bit of railway or road in a slightly prolonged programme, it is vital that we get the voice of tourism into the decision making. People will be turned off from coming down to the far southwest if they have to wait in long traffic jams or get off the train and on to a bus for an unplanned 20-mile bus ride.
Dr. Murrison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Breed: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
My third point concerns grants. I ask the Minister to examine diversification versus upgrading and the way in which grants are applied post-foot and mouth. A lot of money is going into diversification, but some of it is merely working against the strategy. We do not want a

217WH
large number of extra farm tourism projects that might lower the overall quality. We have been driving up the quality to get the experience right. Upgrading is sometimes a better way of using that money. We want diversification in some, but not all, projects. Money invested in genuine upgrading is an essential part of trying to support the overall strategy. Some people have explained to me the tortuous process of trying to receive grant assistance. They produced huge business plans, only to be told that their project did not meet the criteria six months before. It is ludicrous to have objective 1, the Government office for the south west, tourism boards and everything else. The process must be more streamlined so that grants can be given quickly where they are needed.
11.55 am
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: Objective 1 covers Cornwall, and objective 2 covers part of Somerset. Our problem in Somerset is that we cannot match the necessary funding in order to take up the difference. Councils want to be able to market directly and to take steps to encourage tourism, but they cannot as they cannot match the funding. Will the Minister consider that problem in the light of foot and mouth disease? There could be more direct marketing under objective 2 if the funding could be matched.
It was obvious at a meeting with the regional development agency that it wanted to be the prime producer of marketing for tourism in the south-west. It cannot be, as the south-west is a diversified area. I admit that my constituency has little in common with Cornwall, Weymouth or anywhere else. It is unique. I hope that the Minister will continue to pressurise bodies such as the regional development agencies to target their money where it is required. Exmoor encourages many people to come to it, as do the Quantocks and the Levels. I will not even talk about the battle of Sedgemoor. We will encourage people to come much more if we can target the resources through the RDAs and keep out the regional assemblies.
Mr. Adrian Flook: It is a question not only of investing the money, but of the speed at which the response is required. During the foot and mouth crisis last year, organisations did not help people on Exmoor quickly enough.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I agree. I will excite the Minister even more, and I know that he will approve, as I will talk about Butlins. It is a tremendous place, and he should go there. Some 9,000 people a week gather in one place, and the repeat rate is almost 66 per cent. a year. Last year, Butlins had to produce videos and brochures, as the local council could not produce them during the foot and mouth crisis. It was let down by the people who said that they would promote tourism in the south-west, but did not. It was left to a major employer of 750 people—hon. Members may like to imagine what their national insurance bill will be this year—to make its own video for the council. Butlins is vital to areas such as mine. It is the largest employer by far, yet it receives almost no help to encourage people to come.
218WH
I also wonder about Taste of the West, which was trumpeted as an opportunity for producers to promote their food and drink products in an organisation that could foster the best of the west. What has happened to it? Where has it gone? Why are the regional development agencies not using it as a marketing tool to increase productivity and provide genuine reasons for people to come? Cream teas are synonymous with the south-west. What has happened to them? Why is there no marketing budget? Why are the Government not promoting schemes such as Taste of the West as a tool to encourage people to come to the south-west?
Direct marketing is the way forward. If we want to encourage people to come, we must target them specifically. We have 20p per head, unlike the Welsh and the Scots. There is palpable jealousy towards Wales, which my constituency overlooks, because of the money that is available to it, but not to us. Why cannot the Minister target that money through counties, if necessary, so that they can raise the profile of their areas and promote good tourist attractions, such as the battle of Sedgemoor or Monkey World? That would avoid having to go through the plethora of organisations. I suspect that the money will go where it is easier, such as to objective 1 areas such as Cornwall, and not to areas like ours which are rather unsexy because they are out on a limb in the middle of Somerset. Will the Minister think about it?
11.59 am
Mr. Paul Tyler: In view of the pressure of time, I will concentrate on the issues on which there has been broad agreement this morning. I should first like to take up the point that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) just made. The proportion per capita that is being invested in promoting this extremely important industry in England is a disgrace, but there is nothing new in that. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) will recall that in the 1992–97 Parliament I tried to persuade the then Conservative Government to recognise that inequality. The discrepancy worsened during the course of that Parliament and is now, frankly, deplorable.
I agree with what has been said about the need to ensure that we get a quality product. I was at the Eden project this Monday and there were thousands of visitors. Although a great many of the projects that came out of the millennium have been far from satisfactory and disappointing—the dome was obviously at the forefront of that—the Eden project has been a triumphant success. It is firmly based on a good-quality product that is already in Cornwall. People do not come to Cornwall just for that project; they come for the whole Cornish experience. We have a brand in Cornwall that is saleable all over the world. If we can achieve that in other parts of the United Kingdom, we could make huge progress.
Mr. David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. I will let the hon. Member continue, but the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman will need to finish at ten minutes past 12.
Mr. Tyler: I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), for co-operating on that.

219WH
I wanted to mention two other issues that have not attracted much attention this morning. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West mentioned VAT in passing, but the discrepancy between the cost of a holiday in the United Kingdom and the cost of a comparable holiday in continental Europe acts as a disincentive to people, not only to come to Britain, but to keep coming here. I, too, am a vice-president of the British Resorts Association. The work that was done for the industry to identify the effect of that discrepancy—again it was under the previous Tory Government—has never been properly addressed by the Treasury. It must be.
Mr. Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyler: I do not have time.
It is a major problem and I hope that the Government will look at that issue again. It arises every time we have a discussion in my constituency.
The other issue, perhaps the word that dare not speak its name, is the euro. Every holiday business in my constituency, in the rest of Cornwall and throughout the south-west is suffering from the overvalued, uncompetitive pound. That problem must be addressed. Those who argue that it is giving way to the euro and that Britain should never enter the euro, should recognise that the euro has already entered Britain. It is part of our national economy now. It is a major factor. It affects this industry and the farming and fishing industries to an extent that is almost impossible to calculate. It is the biggest single problem that the industry now faces.
Something has to be done, both to enable the industry to compete more effectively—that means that the value of the pound must be addressed—and to prepare it if, in due course, we find ourselves going into the eurozone. Already the enterprising businesses in this industry are catering for the euro, but they are not best helped by the way in which the Government drag their heels on the wider issue. I am grateful for the brief opportunity to contribute to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend for giving me that time.
12.3 pm
Andrew George: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) on securing this debate on an important subject at a crucial time for the industry. The season has begun and we can see whether tourism across the whole of the south-west will improve, following the difficulties that it faced last year.
I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman gave a number of reasons not to visit Bournemouth—its mediaeval cart tracks and other problems.
Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Member give way?
Andrew George: I am sure that representatives of the tourism industry will want to thank the hon. Gentleman for his efforts in that respect. Had he chosen a less combative approach he might have—
Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew George: Yes.
Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman mentioned me, and my constituency. I did not say that Bournemouth
220WH
had cart tracks; I said that the roads that went from Bournemouth to the north and to the west were no better than cart tracks and I asked for them to be improved.
Andrew George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to put the record straight as far as he is concerned. In advancing his arguments, he must be careful not to dissuade people from going to Bournemouth. His approach to the issue should be less combative.
Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Member give way?
Andrew George: I will not give way. I will make some headway. I have little time left.
We need to identify the many shared interests in planning for a more effective tourism industry in the south-west. People have been talking about the foot and mouth disease that has affected the region; humans are suffering from benefit of hindsight disease, the symptoms of which are a brass neck and short-term memory loss. We heard a litany of failure on the subject of Railtrack, VAT on accommodation, lack of investment in roads and the funding formula for tourism authorities, but the seeds of those problems were sewn by the previous Conservative Government.
Mr. Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sanders: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Andrew George: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) as he has not spoken.
Mr. Sanders: The Kingkerswell bypass—the essential link between Torbay, the third largest tourist resort in the country, and the rest of the UK—would have been built by now if the previous Government had not detrunked it in 1996.
Andrew George: My hon. Friend is right. In view of earlier comments, it is fair that he should have the opportunity to put the record straight.
The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) made some helpful points. He said that he was hurt to be described as a Wessex regionalist, but he should not be worried about that. I agree with his fundamental point: as far as marketing is concerned, the south-west is an artificial administrative construct. In tourism terms, places, not artificial constructs, should have a brand. Any additional funding to tourism outside Scotland and Wales should be directed to places that have a clear identity, whether they be in Wessex, Cornwall or elsewhere, and should be used to market those places effectively. Opportunities for joint marketing in a wider area should, of course, be encouraged but such opportunities should enable places to become involved; they should not be cajoled or forced into joint marketing.
Branding will provide a good opportunity to integrate tourism and other sectors, which the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) wanted to encourage. Objective 1 in Cornwall will provide an opportunity to establish a clear Cornish brand. People who have

221WH
enjoyed their holidays in Cornwall will after returning home be able to find products from Cornwall on their supermarket shelves.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall rightly said that we should be careful that public funds do not result simply in more diversification and thereby saturate the market. The Government cannot simply shift the problems of farming on to tourism; they must be addressed in farming.
My hon. Friend also referred to infrastructure. In a debate in January, I took up the prospective closure of the Albert bridge at Easter. At that stage, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), said that it was wrong that Railtrack had consulted only within the industry and not with tourism agencies and commercial and other passenger users. We were told that something would be done about that, but now we face the closure of the rail service between Exeter and Plymouth every weekend in May. There will be further road closures throughout and beyond May. The Minister must take on board the need for Government agencies to consult more widely.
12.10 pm
Mr. John Greenway: I remind colleagues of my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) on securing this debate on tourism. I look forward to visiting Bournemouth in September and October.
We last debated tourism in Westminster Hall in November, when coincidentally we also focused on tourism in the south-west. Perhaps it is not entirely coincidental that we are concentrating on south-west England again, because tourism is a major industry in that region and its tourism businesses were badly hit by the foot and mouth crisis. Geographically, the southwest is one of England's largest regions. A huge diversity of potentially enjoyable visitor experiences is on offer in Britain as a whole.
As my hon. Friend said, the south-west enjoys a long and scenically beautiful coastline, as a result of which many tourism businesses depend on the seaside resorts and visits to the seaside for their prosperity. Those seaside resorts face some of the greatest difficulties in attracting and retaining long-stay visitors and in adapting to the changing pattern of leisure and holidays in recent times. As my hon. Friend reminded us, the future success of the tourism industry in many seaside resorts such as Bournemouth depends on the support given to tourism by local authorities and the ability of local government and other agencies, including the RDAs, local tourist associations and chambers of commerce, to attract and secure funding for regeneration, to improve the infrastructure, such as transport and the provision of car parking, and to provide better facilities and enhanced amenities.
My hon. Friend rightly said that this year's local government settlement for seaside resorts has been disgraceful. I can report that Scarborough, which is partly in my constituency—part of the borough includes the seaside resort of Filey—has had a desperately poor
222WH
settlement. The Government must address that issue if they are serious about wanting to support tourism in seaside resorts.
I visited Bournemouth in autumn 2000 and I commend the efforts of the local council to boost tourism in the area. We cannot assume that even a resort such as Bournemouth, which is one of the most popular and prestigious, will for ever retain its leading position. It is essential to continue new investment to make the town and surrounding area more attractive and to help businesses modernise and improve accommodation facilities. This is as much an issue for the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and the support that it gives to local authorities, as it is for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, with its responsibility as the sponsoring Department for the tourism and leisure industry as a whole.
Since last November's debate, I have also had the chance to spend time visiting many other parts of the south-west, where I have met people from businesses large and small: from small farm guest houses through seaside and historic city centre hotels to major theme parks. I was in Devon in March, visiting Dartmouth, Totnes and Exeter. I also spent an enjoyable morning on Dartmoor, for which I am grateful to Mr. Malcolm Bell, the chief executive of South West Tourism. I commend him and his staff for all that they have done to promote tourism in the south-west during the difficulties of recent times.
Several issues emerged during my visits, some of which I shall raise with the Minister. I was struck by the tremendous resilience of the people working in the tourism industry, especially those running their own businesses. The year 2001 was not a good year, but they are keen to make progress in 2002. They do not ask for favours, although they think that the Government could do more to help. National insurance contribution increases will not do that, as the chairman of Tourism Alliance said in a letter to hon. Members dated 26 April. It was suggested that the NIC increase will cost £250 million to tourism businesses throughout Britain next year.
The tourism industry is worried that the Government have no apparent strategy to deal with a further outbreak of foot and mouth. It is keen to promote self-help and to do the best for itself. I commend the Dartmoor Tourist Association and others in south Hampshire for their work to improve the quality of destinations, hotels, guest houses and other attractions and for their promotion of literature. The association is keen to improve quality. One of the paradoxes of the money that got through to tourism businesses following the outbreak of the foot and mouth crisis was that they were able to improve facilities. As one guest house proprietor in Dartmoor said, "We have this wonderful new facility. We are all up to date. We have refurbished, but we have no customers." That is the key issue.
The tourism industry is keen to invest in training, and it would like more money to be made available for training. It wants to ensure that some of the attractions that have been supported and created by the private sector do not lose their customers to the many other attractions that have received substantial public subsidy through the lottery, such as the Eden project to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)

223WH
referred. I hope that, in the years ahead, we can help businesses throughout the sector with lottery money, especially for heritage.
Mr. Butterfill: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of training, I hope that he shares my hope that the Government will, in future schemes, do better than they did with individual learning accounts, which have been so comprehensively criticised.
Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. The tourism industry wants more patronage, and that brings me to marketing. Last November when we discussed such matters in Westminster Hall, the Minister had the courage to admit that the Government had not taken the industry seriously enough and were wrong to remove the marketing role from the English Tourism Council. I remind the hon. Members for North Cornwall and for St. Ives (Andrew George) that, under the Conservatives, the old English Tourist Board had a marketing function. This Government removed it from the English Tourism Council.
Andrew George: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Greenway: No, I do not have time.
Andrew George: But the hon. Gentleman named me by constituency.
Mr. Greenway: I know, but I am only reacting to what has been said. I am slightly surprised that the Liberal Democrat spokesman has not restated what I understood was Liberal Democrat policy, which was to call for the English Tourism Council to be given a marketing function. Over the past six months, there have been encouraging suggestions. I believe that the Minister and the Secretary of State are trying hard to convince colleagues in the Government that that is the way forward. I hope that the Minister will have something more to say about it today. Everyone in tourism believes that we need a national marketing strategy for England—even in remote parts, such as Dartmoor. Regional promotion has its place. It is important, but regional government is not the answer.
It was suggested in the Financial Times today that the Government may be publishing a White Paper about regionalism this Friday, when the House is not sitting. It is a serious matter and the Government must recognise that what is needed is not a competition between different regions of Britain for the same customers, but a strategic marketing strategy to persuade more domestic tourists to take holidays, short breaks, leisure breaks and so on in this country. Since last November's debate, Tourism Alliance, which the Minister can take some pride in having launched, has published its report, and I welcome it. One of the key conclusions is that we must give the English Tourism Council a strategic marketing role.
The vast majority of tourism businesses in south-west England, and the rest of the country, depend on the domestic market for most of their visitors. As Tourism Alliance said, £4 of every £5 spent in our tourism businesses comes from the domestic market. The alliance suggests that we increase the value of domestic
224WH
tourism by at least 1 per cent. above the rate of growth in consumer expenditure. That is a challenging objective, and it will not be achieved unless the English Tourism Council has a marketing function. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) on inspiring an interesting debate. It is great to see half the Conservative party on either side of him. I have never seen such enthusiasm for a debate of this sort. That is good news. We have little time, but I shall try to answer some of the questions that have been asked.
I agree with almost every word that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said. The lack of a marketing role was a mistake, and that was exposed when there was a downturn in the American economy, then foot and mouth, and then the events of 11 September. We have got to sort out the marketing role, and some interesting suggestions have been made about how we might take marketing forward.
We must not forget that Bournemouth is a great success story for tourism. As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West said, it generates an enormous amount of revenue and employs many people. I think that I am right in saying that tourism brings £500 million to Bournemouth—a tremendous amount—and employs some 20,000. He is right to point out that Bournemouth is peculiar in terms of its geography. I hope that he does not mind me saying so. Several hon. Members pointed out that people go to a place to visit attractions, or perhaps because they want to explore it. They do not go because it lies within an artificial administrative configuration, but for lots of other reasons, and the hon. Gentleman's colleagues have made some of them obvious.
Mrs. Browning: Many of those attractions are signposted by brown tourism signs. I have already raised with other Ministers my concern that the Highways Agency has said that it would like fewer such signs. I thoroughly disapprove of that, and hope that the Minister will use his influence with the Highways Agency to ensure that it does not take action on the matter, because many small rural businesses and attractions will lose out if it does.
Dr. Howells: I assure the hon. Lady that we are trying to punch our weight in such debates. I think that there is too much road signage, but that is not a matter for this debate. We must be rational on the matter, but we must not lose the benefit that brown signs can bring to tourist attractions, especially in areas where there are no other industries, or in rural areas with no obvious tourist attractions. We need to be guided to hidden attractions. The hon. Lady is right, and we shall certainly play our part in the debate.
The hon. Member for Ryedale will be interested to hear me admit that I have taken my model for how to take tourism forwards from the south-west. There were shortcomings in every part of the country in the way that help was given during and after the foot and mouth

225WH
scourge. Despite those shortcomings, the south-west acted well. South West Tourism, with John Boston and Martin Bell, has provided us with a working model, along with the regional development agency and all the private practitioners in tourism in that area. We must look hard at that, because it points the way forward.
I have travelled all around this country looking at tourism projects and the way in which public funding tries to help them, and I think that the most successful area is the south-west.
Mr. John Burnett: The Minister has visited Percy's hotel at Virginstow in my constituency, and he has seen the importance of training for excellence. We would benefit from seeing more of that help—training for excellence—throughout the far south-west.
Dr. Howells: Indeed.
The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) raised the important issue of training. I am sure that he did not mean to give the impression that it is all right to carry on using people who do not mind having low wages and unsocial hours—I think that that was the way that he put it. I do not know anyone who does not mind having a low wage.
Dr. Murrison: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Howells: No, I will not give way. If the hon. Gentleman will sit down, he will find out that I am just about to praise him.
It is important that we understand what makes a success story such as Percy's hotel. It is a magnificent hotel: it is in the middle of countryside; it is a great project altogether, and there are great plans for it. Such a success story depends on notions of quality. That point has been highlighted by hon. Members of all parties. It is important that we increase skills and quality, and we cannot do that on the cheap.
I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger). As I understood it, he suggested that the money should be targeted at people who know the attractions of their areas, so that they can market them better. I have a lot of sympathy for that view. However, as the hon. Member for Ryedale pointed out, there is also a vital need for generic marketing, for the marketing of England, and that must be on a par with the way in which the Scots and the Welsh market their countries. What is interesting about the examples of Scotland and Wales is that those devolved Administrations have understood the enormous economic driving power of tourism, so they have put it right in the middle of economic development—not on the periphery, but in the middle of it.
Mr. Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Howells: I will not give way at the moment, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, as I must continue.
226WH
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) was right to draw hon. Members' attention to the attraction of the Jurassic coast. It is a world heritage site. That is a tremendous achievement.
My hon. Friend also talked about quality—that point was made by hon. Members of all parties. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West knows better than I do that we may attract 5 million visitors to Bournemouth, but if the quality of the product is not good enough, they will not return, because this is one of the most competitive industries. However, I must tell him that every time I have visited Bournemouth, I have had a good holiday. Generally, it offers high quality, but that is not the case with regard to a lot of resorts.
I commend those who have made the point that we must take resorts far more seriously than we have done. We should take a look at the success story that is Bournemouth. I think that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West will admit that it has been a great partnership venture: all sorts of people have been involved in it. They have had to overcome difficulties, but they have been very good at marketing the wonderful spot that Bournemouth occupies, its visual beauty, its nearness to the New forest and to a wonderful heritage coastline
Mr. Swire: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Howells: I am sorry, but I will not.
We can learn from Bournemouth, because it is realising that it has a symbiotic relationship with the New forest, and it is marketing itself not simply as a tourist resort, but as a gateway to a very beautiful hinterland. That is the way forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) talked about the almost hybrid situation that her constituency finds itself in with the tourism industry. It is realising that it has some tremendous niche markets to exploit. It was a joy to stay at the St. Briavel's youth hostel. I could not believe that it was a youth hostel when I walked in and discovered that there were carpets on the floor. That was completely alien to my experience, but it was very nice to be there.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West on drawing attention to this major issue. Any industry that generates £75 billion of revenue for this country every year is important. We have managed to get £20 million out of the Treasury to market Britain this year. We have never had such sums for marketing and that is cause for celebration.
Mr. Bill O' Brien (in the Chair): Order. Time is up.

Sub-Post Offices (Birkenhead)
12.30 pm
Mr. Frank Field: Obviously, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the future of sub-post offices in Birkenhead. As the Minister knows, I want to look to the future rather than dwelling in the past. No sub-post offices in urban areas will be saved by looking to the past.
I shall make three comments about how the debate has shaped up in the past to allow us to begin to understand why there is real concern in Birkenhead about the future of our dozen or so sub-post offices. My first comment is about the quality of the Post Office Board in the past. The Government have started to get a grip on that, but I placed it on the record that during the short period when I was the Minister responsible for the benefit card, I was so appalled by the quality of the Post Office Board that I asked officials whether the whole board could be sacked. Sadly, that advice was not followed: consequently, taxpayers are contributing considerable sums and much of our post office network is under threat.
I am pleased to place it on the record that the Government are acting decisively on the quality of the Post Office Board and the business plans that it proposes. The previous business plan was a suicide note for sub-post offices throughout urban areas of the country.
My second point of concern is that prior to the 1997 election, all Labour Members rightly hammered the Tory Government on the rate of closures of sub-post offices. I know that the Government must be enormously worried that the rate of closure is now greater than under that Conservative Administration.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths) indicated dissent.
Mr. Field: The Minister shakes his head and I am sure that he will come back to me on that. We can put his figures to the Library—it provided me with the data.
My third reason for concern, but also for hope, relates to the Prime Minister's comments during a speech in Croydon prior to last year's election. He tried to establish the idea of liveability for the spaces in which we and our constituents live. I shall cite a paragraph of that speech because it sets the tone of our debate. The Prime Minister said:
"We also need stronger local communities and an improved local quality of life. Streets where parents feel safe to let their children walk to school. Where people want to use the parks. Where graffiti, vandalism, litter and dereliction are not tolerated. Where the environment in which we live fosters rather than alienates a sense of local community and mutual responsibility."
The point is that in Birkenhead, as in many of our urban areas, the Prime Minister's objective will not be achievable if there is a further round of massive closures of sub-post offices.
At the end of the debate, it will give me pleasure to present the Minister with a petition signed by 3,000 people who use a sub-post office in the Oxton area of Birkenhead. The petition was organised at almost the drop of a hat by Mary Powell, who is the sub-
228WH
postmistress of that area. My guess is that when I am in Birkenhead tomorrow she will give me another pile of signatures, so strong is local feeling in the town about the potential loss of any of our dozen or so sub-post offices. I hope that the Minister will accept the petition as a sign of the genuine anxiety that our local voters have about the provision of post office services.
That anxiety is also noticeable in the polls. I am grateful to Living Streets for drawing my attention to the flipside of the data. If people are asked, "What are the big issues facing the country?" they talk about the national health service, schools and—perhaps less, because of our success—the economy. However, if they are asked the similar question, "What are the big issues that affect you?" they talk about their local community and what affects it, whether it is safe and the importance of local services. When asked about local services, they cite whether it is easy to get to, or possible to walk to, the local doctor's surgery or library and, above all, whether the post office, which they believe to be a crucial part of a viable living space, is in walking distance.
I hope that an objective of the debate is to push up the Government's agenda the findings from such polls. Although it is important to ask about the big national issues that affect voters, in the age of, sadly, the alienation of voters we need to pay a great deal of attention to what they regard as the big issues that they face locally.
My third point in explaining why sub-post offices are so important to viable local communities is that, just as Governments are, I think, realising that it is not possible to have happy families if the economy does not pay family wages that support a family with children, so it is not possible to have safe and strong communities if the essential services of those communities are ripped out. I do not believe that the Government's entirely genuine commitment to building up strong communities is consistent with what I fear might be the policy of another wave a significant wave—of the closure of sub-post offices.
This debate looks to the future. In a moment, I shall ask for the Minister's help in looking to the future and making it more secure for our sub-post offices, thereby making our local communities stronger. The debate has centred on Birkenhead but my guess is that we could talk about any of our inner-city areas. What I say about Birkenhead is true of them, too.
Kate Hoey: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on raising the issue of Birkenhead in particular. Does he agree that this is a serious problem for all our urban areas and that all our communities, as represented in the House, are affected by closures? Is he worried about the important role that post offices play in the lives of our pensioners? Is he worried about how the Government are increasingly moving towards making—although they say that there will be a choice—pensioners not use the post office to collect their pension? Does he agree that many pensioners will be extremely worried if they have to deal with a bank?
Mr. Field: Those comments are so relevant to what I want to say that innocent passers-by might even believe that there was collusion between the two of us. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is an issue for pensioners, as

229WH
I shall emphasise in a moment. However, it was noticeable when Mary Powell brought people together to greet me to present the petition for the Minister that not only local businesses, such as the barber, the chemist and the charity shop, but a huge number of mothers were present. I had to comment that, sadly, if the Labour party had called that meeting, very few people would have been there. The sub-post office called the meeting, and the street was full of people who were interested in the issue.
I shall pose two questions to the Minister. First, can he recall whether progress has been made on the introduction of the universal bank? Yesterday, I saw in the press that the person brought into the Post Office to spearhead the introduction of the universal bank was leaving. Is that good or bad news? Secondly, the Government—quite rightly—know that some sub-post offices will have to close; it would be foolish to think that we can keep every one open. However, the network reinvention programme is key to the survival of more, rather than fewer, of those sub-post offices. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister, either in debate or in correspondence, could report progress on that programme.
I ask the Minister for help on four matters. The first touches on an issue raised by my right hon. Friend—I am sorry, my hon. Friend; she should be right hon., and will be soon no doubt—the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). She mentioned the changeover from books to automated credit transfer payments. My worry is that the Department for Work and Pensions will consider the changeover an opportunity to make massive savings in its budget. Pensioners and others who draw their income over the counter in cash may be pushed into using a bank account.
I fear that when the changeover comes people will be asked about their banking arrangements, and that if they wish to continue to draw cash over the post office counter they will have to ask for an interview to explain and justify that choice. Will the Minister give an assurance that those who currently draw cash will be encouraged to continue that practice?
Secondly, will the Minister take up my comments about the fear that the Department for Work and Pensions may try to push people into the banking system when they would prefer arrangements similar to those that they already have? Thirdly—this was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall—will the Government ask the National Audit Office to undertake a study on the real total costs to local communities of closures of sub-post offices? What are the extra costs in fares and in home helps, who have to cover greater distances to post offices to draw money for some of their customers? Who looks after the children when those journeys are being made, and what is the cost of that?
What is the cost to the national health service of people feeling more isolated and depressed and going to the doctor's to get anti-depressants? That clearly relates to the point that my hon. Friend made about post offices playing a social role. People turn up and meet one another, and so become the eyes and ears of the local police force. They help to police an area. Also, where there are viable local sub-post offices there are other
230WH
viable local shops, and where there are such shops there are people shopping, watching and listening. That is the basis for a proper community.
If we remove the sub-post office, we make other businesses vulnerable. We all know the problems caused by vandals when businesses close and shops become derelict. Will the Government consider being the first Government to ask the National Audit Office to do a proper costing of the closure of a sub-post office to a local community?
Fourthly, will the Minister refer this debate to Lord Falconer, who co-ordinates the group on liveability, which the Prime Minister established? Will he also forward a request for the National Audit Office to carry out a proper, comprehensive costing of what losing a sub-post office means to a community?
Those are the points that I wanted to make. While sounding a note of caution, I wanted to look to the future. The dozen or so sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in Birkenhead do not believe that they will secure their futures merely by looking to the past. In looking to the future, however, they recall the clear statements that we made before we were elected in 1997 about the importance of sub-post offices to the viability and life of local communities. In the quarter of an hour that remains, I hope that the Minister will look to the future in a positive way. What he says will be followed closely not only by sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in Birkenhead, but by those elsewhere, who know that his words affect their futures, too.
I am immensely grateful to you, Mr. O'Brien, for allowing me to introduce this debate.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on securing this debate and on the courteous and coherent way in which he presented his arguments. I believe that his strong support for the post office network and his concerns for its future are shared by the whole House.
My right hon. Friend has taken a particular interest in this subject because of the social role that sub-post offices play in the communities that they serve. As a distinguished former Social Security Minister and an author, he knows better than anyone the issues that affect poorer claimants in deprived communities and the vital need for such people to have local resources such as sub-post offices.
I have just returned from a ministerial visit to the north-west, during which I toured small businesses and came close to my right hon. Friend's constituency. I have been greatly heartened over the past two days to see a revitalised economy and low rates of unemployment. Those developments will allow us to concentrate our energies on areas that have not quite caught up and to which we need to devote resources.
My right hon. Friend made several thoughtful points, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and I shall respond in some detail. I wholly endorse my right hon. Friend's view that we need a viable network of post offices to serve the needs of every community. I applaud his efforts and those of his constituents in collecting 19,000 signatures in support of

231WH
Oxton village post office, and I am sure that such customer loyalty will guarantee its commercial success. I hope that the same is true of other post offices, whose customers are rallying behind them. I also endorse my right hon. Friend's stress on the need to maintain a network of sub-post offices to meet the needs of customers who depend on them for ease of access to their pensions, benefits and many other services.
I agree that post offices provide a focal point for their communities: indeed, the sub-post office network plays a vital role in society. Many of the vulnerable and the elderly rely on the sub-post office to deliver services to them, and it is a convenient place for the community to access Government services, financial products and, of course, postal services. It is much more than just a retail outlet, particularly in rural areas, although it also plays a vital role in urban areas. I should also stress that it is a public service.
Local sub-post offices provide vital human contact for many of their customers, serving 28 million people every week. They are a trusted point of contact with government services and a wide range of other services, and I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in placing on the record our thanks to the dedicated service that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses perform. As hon. Members know, sub post offices are a vital part of the social and financial fabric of the country. I know that everyone—Post Office Ltd., sub postmasters and sub-postmistresses and post office customers wants the post office network to survive and, better than that, to thrive in the 21st century.
My right hon. Friend focused on two areas and asked me to consider four other important matters. In particular, he asked about the network urban reinvention programme. This debate is about urban post offices in particular, and I know that my right hon. Friend will share my pleasure that there have been only five net closures in the north-west in the year to March, leaving 1,848 local post offices and sub-post offices delivering an excellent service. Although I do not want to trade figures—and I know that my right hon. Friend will diligently check the figures with the Library—the latest figures for the country as a whole show that his area heads the league tables for the number of post offices retained. That is important, but in the past year the number of closures totalled 262. That is all very regrettable, but in 1991–92, 478 post offices closed, and I was shaking my head because there has been a decline, rather than an acceleration, in closures. We need to take on board my right hon. Friend's comments, as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and other hon. Members, to ensure that post offices have a viable future.
In respect of urban reinvention, in the year 2000 the Cabinet Office carried out a detailed study of the future of the post office network and made 24 recommendations. In the subsequent comprehensive spending review, the Chancellor allocated £270 million to start implementing the key recommendations. That has been the subject of extensive consultation with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. Following that consultation, letters were sent out last month, inviting the views of every urban sub-postmaster and sub-postmistress. Detailed discussions with each one of them are now being held, which will be followed by a public consultation. There will also be detailed public
232WH
consultations on each restructuring proposal. I can confirm to the House that that will involve hon. Members, local authorities, Postwatch, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and other relevant bodies. The objective of Post Office Ltd. for the urban network is clear. It is tasked with establishing better, brighter post offices as viable businesses that deliver adequate returns to sub-postmasters and a full service in their communities. Extensive work is being undertaken to determine how best the urban network should adapt to commercial changes in the marketplace and how funding should be structured to assist in that. In some areas there are up to 10 post offices in a square mile, often located within a few hundred yards of one another. Nationally, some two thirds of the urban population, perhaps some 30 million people, live within half a mile of two or more sub-post offices. I welcome the realistic note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead injected into the debate when he said that it would be foolish to think that we could keep every post office open.
It is important to recognise that the programme on which we are embarking has the full support of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. I am grateful to Colin Baker, its general secretary, for regarding the talk of mass closures as scaremongering and wide of the mark. Regarding his criticisms of those who criticise the industry for being out of date and in decline, I take to heart the advice that my right hon. Friend gave some years ago about the quality of management in the Post Office. However, I am delighted by the quality of the managers whom we have brought in. These include David Mills, who has great plc expertise gained at HSBC, and Alan Leighton, who is one of the most successful retail entrepreneurs ever seen in this country and has the practical background and great leadership qualities that are needed to enable the Post Office to turn the corner.
On universal banking, I welcome the support that my right hon. Friend has given to the general principle of the automation of benefit payments to tackle fraud and reduce unnecessary administrative costs. Some of that money has probably found its way, although not hypothecated, to the good things that have been done for claimants, such as the minimum income guarantee for senior citizens and the rises in child benefit—but we could have a separate debate on that.
Hon. Members do not need to be reminded that the number of people choosing to have their pensions and allowances paid into their bank account has risen from 23 per cent. to 41 per cent. in the seven years since 1994. More than 80 per cent. of recipients have bank accounts. However, we must ensure that the remaining recipients are not penalised because of the measure. That must be taken into account in the move to paying all benefits direct into bank accounts via the existing automated credit transfer system, which is due to start in 2003 and be completed in 2005.
The Department for Work and Pensions' agencies will continue, up to that time, to provide customers with the information that they need on benefit payment options. On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, I assure right hon. and hon. Members that there can be no compulsion—no one can be called in to be bullied. That would cause great resentment and would not go unnoticed in the House.

233WH
The Post Office Ltd. is rightly seeking to extend its existing network banking arrangements to more high street banks and to offer a wider range of services to customers. I hope that that will allow as many people as wish to to take advantage of that, and that the transitional and other arrangements will be adequate. I am happy to write to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead if he would like more detail on that, but time is too short to cover it in more detail now.
My right hon. Friend also asked about the possibility of the National Audit Office's undertaking a study of the impact of closures on local communities. As a recently discharged member of the Public Accounts Committee, I support and endorse the excellent work done at the National Audit Office by Sir John Bourn and his team. He is always keen to receive the views of right hon. and hon. Members on possible future National Audit Office investigations and I know that he will pay close attention to any representations from such a distinguished, honourable colleague.
However, my right hon. Friend will know that Sir John acts independently of Ministers. He does not take instruction from us about topics that may be suitable for further investigation, but he is always willing to give the closest consideration to suggestions such as those made by my right hon. Friend.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing Members' attention to the Prime Minister's excellent speech in Croydon. The Prime Minister spoke for us all when he stressed the need for stronger local communities and an improved local quality of life. My right hon. Friend quoted line 6 of that speech. I shall quote line 18:
"Indeed, one of the failings of Thatcherism was to misunderstand how 'public goods' such as clean, safe and attractive streets and public spaces need investment alongside growing private affluence."
Perhaps we can add post offices to that list.
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), reported the most recent developments to the House last week. I shall ensure that she and Lord Falconer are aware of the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. I commend him again for raising this important subject, which is of interest to every hon. Member.

Endangered Species
1 pm
Norman Baker: This is a welcome opportunity to discuss endangered species. That the Minister for the Environment is replying to the debate is especially welcome, as, judging by his utterances in this House and elsewhere, he may agree with much of what I say. I hope that he will communicate his enthusiasm to other Ministers who may be more reticent about the subject.
There is no more heinous crime than to stand by and watch the extinction of a species. It is estimated that species are disappearing at 1,000 times the background rate. That is a terrible indictment of the human race: we are in the dock, and any court would find us guilty of causing that massive increase in the disappearance rate. It has been said that forests precede man and deserts follow him. That is a sad truth, as we can see when we look around the world. Bearing in mind how long the planet has existed, we must accept that in the past 200 years, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, we have done untold damage to our natural environment. That damage is occurring at a rate that cannot be sustained; it must be halted and, if possible, reversed.
The Born Free Foundation, an organisation for which I have tremendous admiration, states that there are 2,155 critically endangered species in the world. Cautious estimates from other sources suggest that 20,000 species a year are disappearing—about two an hour, which means that, by the time that the Minister and I have finished speaking, another species will have become extinct.
Among the species at risk are Californian condors, of which there are only 120 left in the world, and Cross River gorillas, of which there are 200. The Majorcan midwife toad is Europe's most endangered species. The Minister may have seen articles in the press about the potential disappearance of the lynx from Portugal and Spain; there is a real prospect of that happening in the next three or four years. Species such as the black-footed ferret are alive only in captivity. Of cuddly animals—although tigers may not count as such—it is estimated that there are only around 400 Siberian tigers left, 40 to 50 of the South China tiger and 400 of the Sumatran tiger. The Caspian, Java and Bali tigers are all thought to be extinct.
That is a terrible indictment of the human race. If any hon. Member feels that the problem exists only in other parts of the world, let us reflect that in the United Kingdom alone, 134 species became extinct during the last century. We have our own work to do in our country. I find appalling the way in which the human race acts towards other species and the environment as a whole. When I lived in Beddingham in Sussex opposite the Mount Caburn national nature reserve, it was a delight to see a carpet of trumpet daffodils and other species of daffodil covering the hillside each spring. One day—literally one day—someone came and cleared the whole lot off, and they have not been seen since. The activities of one person can have a dramatic effect on our environment and on species propagation.
Why does it matter? A Christian would say that we have stewardship of the planet and therefore a duty to look after it. Those of a more Gaian propensity would

235WH
say that we must coexist in harmony with all species, and that what happens to one species affects another. Everything is connected to everything else—I think that Lenin said that, and in an earlier incarnation the Minister may have been familiar with the quote. I do not think that Lenin was thinking about the environment, but it is an appropriate saying to introduce into the debate. Respect for humans and for animals is interlinked. A person who does not respect animal life probably does not respect human life. The Royal Society for the Protection of Animals has done some interesting work to demonstrate that those who are cavalier with animals tend to be cavalier towards children—and with human life in general.
Respect for the environment matters from a selfish point of view, because untold benefits that could help mankind can be derived from the natural world, and we are in danger of losing them if the loss of species continues at the current rate. How many medical benefits could be obtained from rain forests in Brazil and elsewhere? Many have already been identified, but many others will be lost as species become extinct. It is a crime that, for profit and gain and regardless of the consequences, some people are destroying everything in their sight in the tropical rain forests, simply to reach two or three trees many miles inside the forest. They want only to realise the value of a few trees, but we lose everything else in the process. We all have a duty to do what we can to bring a more responsible attitude to bear among human beings and improve the way in which we human beings deal with our environment and other species.
I have identified a number of problems. Ministers are well aware of the issue of climate change and carbon dioxide emissions, and I pay tribute to the Government for the work that they have done in that respect, particularly the Deputy Prime Minister and others for identifying the problem and for committing themselves to achieving significant and real carbon dioxide reductions. The attitude of the Government and of the European Union generally contrasts markedly with that of the United States of America. Like most hon. Members, I am appalled that the USA has repeatedly repudiated the Kyoto protocol on climate change and given in to the big guns of the US oil industry. That short-term political gain will cause long-term human loss. The USA should be ashamed of itself.
I understand that by 2010, global carbon dioxide levels are expected to have risen by 31 per cent. since 1990, which contrasts with the 7 per cent. drop that we envisage. Will the Minister confirm that figure? I hope that he will tell me that it is wrong, because such a figure, if correct, would be horrendous. Other statistics make it clear that global warming is happening and that it is affecting species. The world was warmer in the first three months of this year than at any time in the past 1,000 years. The 1990s were the hottest decade of the last millennium. One consequence of that is that species are having to adapt to fast-changing temperatures—a rise in temperature far beyond what nature would normally generate, and way beyond what species can necessarily cope with.
Climate change on its own could lead to the extinction of certain species. Some countries such as Russia, Canada, Norway, Sweden and the Arctic countries are likely to lose as much as 45 per cent. of their habitat. As
236WH
many as 20 per cent. of species could be lost in the most vulnerable Arctic ecosystems: for example, it is expected that snowy owls in Canada will lose up to 60 per cent. of their habitat. In Russia, spoonbilled sandpipers, the red-breasted goose, the emperor goose, the tundra goose, the bean goose and others are under threat for the same reasons. Other natural organisms, such as coral reefs, will also be affected. Warming oceans are killing sources of food from plankton to the polar bear. We may not be terribly familiar with it, but the humble plankton is a key to the whole ecosystem and we disregard what is happening to it.
The problem is global and it can be dealt with only globally. I recognise the efforts that the Government are making, but they need to find a way with other partners to do more. It is not sufficient for one country—or even half a dozen—to pound the drum. We need to deal with the matter internationally, and if countries such as the United States opt out of key protocols, we are in difficulties.
The second issue that concerns me is the trade in endangered species in the United Kingdom. For example, 88 per cent. of parrots imported into the country are caught in the wild. That is improper and unsustainable. We have a recognised problem, in that UK Customs dealt with 570 wildlife items every day last year. That is a huge number. We hear all the stories in the newspapers about bushmeat coming in. Few planes are checked, yet illegally imported meat is found nearly every time a check takes place. We need to increase the number of customs officers who deal with checks on the trade in endangered species.
Wildlife smuggling is thought to be worth £3.7 billion a year, which makes it second to only the drugs trade in terms of profitability. Between 1996 and 2000, more than 1 million wildlife items were seized in the UK by Customs and Excise. The trade is gigantic and unethical and we must deal with it. I understand that under UK law criminals can be arrested for importing or exporting illegal wildlife products, but not for trading in them. If that is true—the Minister will correct me if it is not—that loophole needs to be closed.
On 10 April, I asked a parliamentary question about prosecutions since 1997 under legislation on the control of trade in endangered species. In 1997, there were 495 seizures but no one was successfully prosecuted. In 1998, there were 498 seizures and no one successfully prosecuted. In 1999, 336 seizures took place, but no one was successfully prosecuted. In 2000, there were 441 seizures and only one person was successfully prosecuted. In 2001, 434 seizures were made, and two people were successfully prosecuted. I hope that the Minister will not say that those figures, having gone from nought to two over that period, are improving. Something- is wrong with a system in which so many seizures can be made and so few people successfully prosecuted.
Under the legislation, although the maximum prison sentence is two years, offences are non-arrestable. The police therefore cannot caution people involved in such crimes. Suspects can be invited for questioning at a police station, but they can refuse, and the police have no power of entry without a warrant. When offenders are caught, they are given minimal fines and rarely sentenced to any terms in prison. For example, a company was fined only £1,500 for possessing 138

237WH
shawls made from the fleeces of slaughtered Tibetan antelope, which the Minister will recognise is a highly endangered species. The shawls were worth more than £350,000 and estimated to represent 2 per cent. of the entire species. Although more than 1,000 antelope were killed to make the shawls, the result was fines equivalent to only £10.87 a shawl, despite the fact that each shawl would sell for between £3,000 and £12,000. What incentive is there in that for people to abandon the trade? They are unlikely to be stopped or caught and, even if they are prosecuted successfully, they are unlikely to be fined significantly.
I refer the Minister to David Cowdrey, the WWF campaign director on wildlife trade, who said:
"We are losing the fight against wildlife crime in the UK. The unfortunate reality is that low penalties and lack of resources for detection mean that most criminals get away scot-free. Prosecutions are infrequent, court fines are low, this has to change."
The Government can do something about that, so I look to the Minister for an assurance that he will take action.
We must also consider inappropriate use of natural resources such as overfishing and whaling. Stocks of once popular North sea species such as cod have plummeted, and fishing for them is subject to strict controls. Overfishing is a misuse of our environment. Our approach to fisheries is not sustainable, and is symptomatic of how we deal with our natural resources generally. After decades of protection, seven of the 13 great whale species are still endangered or vulnerable, yet thanks to the exploits of Japan and Norway, more than 1,000 whales are killed each year for the commercial market.
I do not have time to go into that subject in great detail, but I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that Japan clearly seems to be spending its way into legalised whaling. It is known to have spent $275.7 million on support for countries that will vote with it in the International Whaling Commission. Japan's fisheries aid grants to five Caribbean countries—Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines—between 1987 and 1999 totalled $100 million. The Solomon Islands got £10 million from Japan over a six year period. Morocco received $45 million from Japan: as the Minister may know, Morocco was an observer at the IWC between 1994 and 2000; it joined in 2001 and voted with Japan. Japan gave $7.5 million aid to Guinea in 1998: Guinea joined the IWC in 2000 and voted with Japan. This is about vote buying by the Japanese in order to legalise whaling. The Minister and his colleagues have been resolute in their opposition to whaling and the Minister with responsibility for fisheries has done a splendid job, but we have to deal with a situation in which Japan is buying votes in order to bring back whaling.
We need to deal with sustainable development on a broad basis. We will not be able to protect our endangered species unless we take the view in the round that people across the planet should have access to clean water, food and decent shelter and should not feel obliged—as many do in order to survive—to destroy the very resources that should provide them with sustainable living for many generations. We need to deal with the fact that such people destroy their resources in
238WH
one generation to stay alive. We must deal with the inequalities in the world. I recognise that that is a big agenda, but 82 per cent. of the world's wealth is held by 20 per cent. of its population, whereas the poorest 20 per cent. have only 1.4 per cent. One billion people live on less than $1.50 per day—while each person in the US generates three quarters of a ton of waste each year to go into landfill sites or to be burnt. We must deal with that nationally and internationally.
My last point is about international agreements. We have the convention on biological diversity and the climate change convention, but they are not legally binding, as the Minister knows. However, in parallel we have the World Trade Organisation, which is legally binding. I recognise the danger, but without being protectionist we must change the rules of the WTO to enable countries to resist imports from countries where the natural environment has been degraded unsustainably and animals have been treated in a way that is not acceptable—either species have been eliminated, or their treatment in welfare terms is unacceptable. The WTO agreement needs to be changed to achieve that.
I want the Minister to have plenty of time to respond to the big agenda that I have laid out. Without wanting to overplay the matter, respect for the environment is one of the most important issues faced by the human race; we are not doing very well with it so far.
1.17 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I have rarely listened to a more passionate or better documented speech of just 15 minutes. It contained an enormous amount of detail and a very compelling argument, put forward persuasively. It will not surprise the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that I agree with virtually everything that he said. He was generous enough to say that the Government have made serious efforts in many areas—I shall try to detail some of my own issues in a moment—but he is right that a great deal more has to be done. We have scarcely scratched the surface if we really are to arrest serious trends.
The hon. Gentleman started with a point that I reiterate. The rate of biodiversity loss is so huge that experts say that it can almost be regarded as the sixth extinction in the history of the earth. There have been five major extinctions, the last of which eliminated the dinosaur 65 million years ago. However, the rate of loss is so extensive—and accelerating—that it can be considered on that scale. He is also right that people who are cavalier with other living creatures are also cavalier with human life. We are the dominant species on the planet—at the moment. The idea that because of our dominance we can disregard the right of other species and other creatures to have their share of life on this diverse and bountiful earth is important: no one has a right, particularly not an enthusiastic Gaian, which I am, to believe that one race can dominate all the others without serious long-term consequences that, in the end, may rebound on our survival.
The hon. Gentleman said a great deal about climate change. I do not have much time to talk about that, but it will unquestionably affect habitats. It has already begun to affect them. We have all read press articles

239WH
about the rapid decline in the number of polar bears in the arctic, which is due simply to the decline in phytoplankton and krill on which they depend. The Larsen iceberg is breaking away, which is having a drastic effect on the capacity to survive of creatures such as the polar bear. The United States is responsible for a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, although it has only 4 per cent. of the world's population. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is essential that it returns to the Kyoto protocol or takes equivalent measures. The United States has an important role, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are maintaining the pressure to make it recognise its responsibilities.
We are making progress. I shall concentrate on the loss of global biodiversity and combating illegal trade in endangered species. I have just returned from the sixth meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity in the Hague, where some useful conclusions were drawn. For the first time there is a strategic plan, which aims to achieve globally, regionally and nationally a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. Guiding principles were proposed that aim to reverse the expansion of alien invasive species—the second greatest threat to biodiversity after loss of habitat.
There is an action-oriented work programme on forestry, which includes action against the loss of forest biodiversity. There are also guidelines on access to and benefit sharing of genetic resources—the so-called Bonn guidelines. I take the hon. Gentleman's entirely correct point that they are voluntary guidelines. All I will say is that there are 182 countries, and it is difficult to get their agreement. An agreed framework and guidelines may not be adequate. We intend to monitor them. If there are significant breaches of the guidelines, or if countries fall significantly short of them, we will have to demand at future meetings that the guidelines are made mandatory. It took seven years to negotiate the Food and Agriculture Organisation proposals that form an international undertaking on access to and benefit sharing of plant genetic sources. I accept that mandatory regulations may be the only way to ensure that action is effective.
The British Government are taking several initiatives. The Darwin initiative is a collaborative grant programme that uses British expertise to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in less developed countries. Since 1993, the Government have also provided £27 million to more than 230 Darwin projects with links to some 80 developing countries. That is a relatively small, but not insignificant, sum. If other countries did the same, it would have a serious impact.
We are also one of the first to signal support for the new great apes survival project—otherwise known as Grasp—that was launched by the United Nations Environment Programme last year. The project seeks to raise funds for great ape conservation, and to develop a global conservation strateg3, for that species. This year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office contributed £175,000, which is a substantial proportion of the $2.9 million sought by UNEP. I hope that other countries will follow that example in order to strengthen and extend that sort of work.
240WH
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need more checks on aeroplanes. It is true that food such as bushmeat is confiscated even today. The problem lies with the number of Customs officers and the fact that they must deal with drug smuggling, arms dealing, tobacco fraud, and preventing the spread of animal diseases such as foot and mouth. I take the point that it is vital to protect species as well as people in this country. The trade in illegal species and illegal meat must be stopped.
The Government are fully committed to the fight against wildlife crime. It is the second largest form of illegal trading in the world after drugs. One informed reckoning states that it accounts for $20 billion a year, of which a quarter is illegal. We are trying to raise awareness of the controls on the import of wildlife to the UK as tourist souvenirs or through the pet trade. Unfortunately, too many tourists return from their travels, often unwittingly, with souvenirs made from endangered species.
Extensive powers are already available to deal with illegal imports or exports of species listed under the convention on international trade in endangered species. I agree that we need more prosecutions and higher penalties. We must also ensure that potential criminals understand that there will be deterrent fines and that they are likely to be apprehended. That is not the case at the moment, but I met representatives of the World Wildlife Fund and other Departments, including Customs, this morning and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am determined to increase the numbers of prosecutions and the level of fines or introduce imprisonment.
Under the provisions of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, people found guilty of smuggling endangered species face up to seven years in jail. Unfortunately, there are not many examples of when that ceiling has been used. I want it to be used more often. Earlier this year, a person found guilty of illegally importing birds of prey into the UK from Thailand was jailed for six and a half years. That is a significant penalty, which sent shockwaves through some parts of the criminal community, and I would like to see many more such examples. In June 2001, two London shopkeepers were sentenced to four months in prison for smuggling and selling illegally imported bush meat. That is a low penalty, but it is imprisonment, not a fine, which is significant. In March 2000, a parrot breeder was sentenced to two and a half years and fined £5,000 for smuggling rare parrots, including three Lear's macaw, of which fewer than 150 pairs remain in the wild. The penalties are beginning to be increased, but we still have a long way to go to dissuade the criminal fraternity.
We are about to begin a review of the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997, and as part of that we will consider whether the current maximum penalty of two years for such offences remains appropriate. In my view, it is not. Although it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the penalties attached to offences are commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and compatible with the general sentencing framework, we must seriously consider increasing the penalties for COTES offences and making them arrestable. At the moment, people cannot be arrested once they are through customs, which is a clear loophole.

241WH
As part of the work to take forward the recommendations of the Halliday report on the review of the sentencing framework, we are also examining the scope for a new set of sentencing guidelines under the auspices of a statutory body. I am keen to pursue that, and we will publish a White Paper this year. We are also working hard through the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime, which is sometimes known as PAW, to find further opportunities to increase awareness of wildlife crime and its implications among the judiciary.
Finally, our work to combat illegal wildlife trade took a significant step forward when I announced the establishment of the national wildlife criminal intelligence unit. The Government are committed to ensuring that the unit will be a success. I was very impressed by the police officers whom I met on that day, and we are providing some £440,000 to support the unit until March 2004. Together with the £100,000 provided by the police chief constables, which is a lot of money out of their constrained budgets and shows their commitment, our investment will get the unit up and running. It will work at national, international and strategic levels to collect and analyse intelligence from a wide variety of sources. It will then refine that information into operational and manageable packages to be passed to the appropriate police or Customs officers to investigate jointly with the unit. It will not take over from the police and Customs officers in the field: they do a great job and need more support. It will not carry out investigations and prosecutions in its right but it will work at the strategic level.
I thank the hon. Gentleman very warmly for his outstanding speech that was delivered with real passion. There is a case to answer. I am determined to ensure that we answer it.

Magistrates Courts (Essex)
1.30 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring this matter before the House. Before I go any further I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members Interests as a partner in a firm of solicitors in Essex, practising in the magistrates courts.
The Minister and, I suspect, his predecessors are well versed in responding to these debates as a result of the number of times that they appear here in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber. As recently as 17 April the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) secured an Adjournment debate to oppose the closure of Lame magistrates court. To research the debate I could have gone back through Hansard to see how many times the closure of magistrates courts appeared. While it is not the most frequent topic, it appears very regularly.
My reason for raising the matter at this time is the remorseless advance of the private finance initiative in Essex. Private finance offers the opportunity for the magistrates courts committee to seek private capital and private funding for the restructuring or rebuilding of courthouses in the county. I do not propose to debate whether the PFI is the right or the wrong approach; that is a debate for another day. But it is the impetus for the prospective closure of a number of courts in Essex, and a scheme was approved by the Essex magistrates courts committee at its meeting on 25 February 2002.
If the PFI goes ahead it will result in the closure of the court at Witham, in my constituency, following the closure of the court at Braintree some four years ago. In addition courts at Harwich, Epping and Grays are scheduled for closure. As a result, Essex, one of the larger and most populous counties, will have only five courthouses. I have practised in the magistrates courts in Essex for more than a quarter of a century. Over that time courts have been closed in all parts of the county. In the last 20 years we have lost courts at Halstead, Maldon, Brentwood, Billericay, Southminster, Castle Hedingham, Braintree, Saffron Walden, Clacton and Dunmow. That is before we reach the latest round of court closure.
Soon after my election to this House in 1997, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), a near neighbour of mine, initiated a debate on the then most recent round of closures. Notwithstanding the united opposition of the county council, the district council, the town councils for neighbouring and potentially benefiting towns and the police, three further magistrates courts were closed, including Braintree. In that debate, the hon. Gentleman proved himself to be an adept soothsayer. He said:
"In the fulness of time, we in Essex will be left with five super-courts and a pick-and-mix magistrates bench."—[Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 686.]
Unfortunately, time has not proved to be very full. In less than five years the five courts that he predicted are now envisaged.
My concerns as to the intentions of the magistrates courts committee were alerted in 1997–98. As a result of my fear about its intentions regarding the courthouse at Witham, I wrote in early 1999 to the then and present

243WH
chief executive of the magistrates courts committee, Mr. Peter McGuirk. I shall quote his reply at some length or I may seem to be unfair. In 1999, he told me:
"I must first go straight to the heart of your concern and assure you that the MCC"—
the magistrates courts committee—
"has no plans in the medium term to close Witham Courthouse. The background to the MCC decision to close three courthouses"—
in 1997–98—
"was the need to reduce excess courtroom provision. With those closures the MCC now has the number of courtrooms it needs in the medium term and has no plans for further reductions. As we made clear to all interested parties in 1997 when we consulted on the courthouse closures, our next step would be a private finance initiative project to secure accommodation for a proper modern standard for the long term. It is by no means certain that such a deal would result in the closure of Witham courthouse but there is in any case no prospect at present of the MCC being allowed in to begin the PFI procedures for several years".
The medium term was referred to only three years ago, but the current proposals were made at least by last summer.
The arguments against courthouse closures have been advanced in the House certainly during the whole time that I have been here and, I suspect, for the previous 20 years as well. However, Governments of both political persuasions have thus far appeared deaf to those arguments. I have yet to see a study that shows the savings that can be found by closing courthouses matched with the increased expenditure that results to other services. One does not have to be a high-ranking chartered accountant to understand that, if a courthouse is closed in one town, there will be additional expenditure for the police, the legal aid fund, social services, local councils and the probation service.
In 1997, my own council, Braintree district, which fully supported keeping local courthouses open, estimated that transferring its prosecution work to other courts would cost it some £10,000 to £12,000 per year. That was just one element in the additional cost equation, which always seems to be put to one side when the matter of balancing the finances is raised.
Also in 1997, the then chief constable of Essex, and my constituent, John Burrow, wrote about the closures at that time:
"This is not only a case where saving in one area of the criminal justice system will result in significantly increased expenditure in other areas, but also there is a very real issue of the loss of local justice across large swathes of the County".
Ultimately, the loss of local justice is at the heart of the objection to closing courthouses. That concept is lost as one ploughs through the jargon-ridden apology for the private finance initiative in Essex and the consequent closures of courthouses.
I should like to refer to a consultation document, although I suspect that hon. Members have almost no greater fear than the word "consultation". As one often fears, consultation takes place, but listening does not result. Objective No. 2 in that document refers to "reasonable accessibility" to courthouses. Then, of course, as is the trick of the trade, that phrase is defined so as to produce the desired result.
In the county of Essex, it has been estimated that it is reasonable for witnesses, defendants and others to be able to reach a courthouse after a journey of one and a
244WH
half hours by public transport, plus a further 15-minute walk from the bus stop or railway station. Of course, that takes no account of the bus being cancelled, the train being late or someone having to walk down to catch the train at a suitable time. It takes no account of someone thereafter leaving the courthouse to return home. However, that is the definition, and a formula is then constructed whereby the closures will not be adverse to the benefit of the public.
A travel survey has also been commissioned, which seeks to show that most people who attend courts do not necessarily come from the district where the court is. However, one must go beyond the travel survey to discover the true position. Already, the magistrates courts in the county of Essex are allocated different kinds of cases; thus there are trials in one court and pleas in another court in another district. It is in the nature of that system that already people are being moved around the county.
I have been worried for several years about the diminution of local justice, which reduces the position of the magistrate in the legal system and in counties and boroughs. The essence of a magistrate is their familiarity with the locality in which they serve. Magistrates have an interest and a pride in their township or rural district and sit on the bench to serve local people by using their local knowledge. A magistrate from Chelmsford who sat in Basildon would probably not have an exhaustive knowledge of the street systems of Basildon; that would be difficult even if one lived in Basildon. In a road traffic case or a case involving a public disturbance in the street, it is most useful to know exactly how the streets lie in order to judge whether witness A's statement is believable, for example.
The local element is crucial to a magistrate's ability to serve, but it is not just a matter of knowledge but of pride in the position. People who serve on the magistrates' bench in their own locality know that they are carrying out a community function by serving their neighbours, friends and others who live there. The defendants who appear before them are usually based locally and might have some remorse or concern about their actions knowing that they are appearing in the midst of their own community.
In the mid 1970s, I frequently appeared at Southminster magistrates court—long since gone—which was out on the marshes on the Dengie peninsula. That tiny courthouse would not fulfil any of the criteria for a modern and convenient courthouse. It was next to the police station in a village on a railway line that, remarkably, escaped Dr. Beeching's axe in the 1960s. Most people involved in that little court knew each other and at the end of the proceedings on a Friday morning, which is when it sat, the prosecutor, the defence advocate, the magistrates, the clerk and the defendants would adjourn to a nearby pub for lunch. That gave one a real sense of what community was, and justice, too.
I was especially impressed by one of the magistrates, a kindly man who owned a local works, when a young man appeared before him who was, I suspect, not inherently bad, but in endless mischief. The magistrates were usually indulgent with him, but eventually they had no choice but to send him to prison. What may not happen today is that when the young man came out of

245WH
prison that same magistrate, who was chairman of the bench, offered the young man a job in his works. That shows the sense of community that is now being lost.
Bob Spink: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. My constituency, too, is in Essex. The hon. Gentleman will share my wish to pay tribute to the lay people who serve on magistrates' benches throughout the country. They do an excellent job and give their time selflessly.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of the closures and to quality. Will he reinforce what he said about the impact of the closures on the quality and speedy administration of justice? They are essential not just to the witnesses and the community but to the defendants. Court closures tend to make justice seem more remote to those communities and, in some cases, have delayed the administration of justice. They have not served justice well. I entirely support the hon. Gentleman's theme.
Mr. Hurst: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I have described a courthouse in the country that I visited regularly in the 1970s. Within the past two or three weeks, I visited Southend magistrates court. I went into the main remand court and was faced with a dock that was made from reinforced glass to the ceiling. It had slits in it for the defendant to whisper through to his advocate or to the magistrates. I was put in mind of the trial of Adolf Eichmann and the special booth that was constructed for his trial in 1960–61, as those of my generation and older will remember. The appearance of the reinforced dock in Southend was more reminiscent of a war crimes tribunal than a magistrates court. Indeed, the only hearing at which I was present was in respect of a defendant who had pleaded guilty within that dock to not wearing a seat belt.
We must try to refresh ourselves with the spirit of what local justice is about. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to speak to his colleagues to see whether we can stop going down the road that we have been going down for the past 25 years. Mr. O'Brien, you heard an earlier debate in which the Prime Minister was quoted, referring to the importance of strengthening local communities. Here is an opportunity to think again about how justice can become local justice and, thus, real justice.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): I start by extending my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on securing the debate. The issue of magistrates courts is emotive and I well understand how important it is to his constituents and to those of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). The debate comes at a time when magistrates courts are undergoing a huge change. More change is likely to come. Sir Robin Auld published his report at the end of last year; the Government will be announcing their conclusions and how they intend to proceed on the basis of that report imminently. Undoubtedly, there will be implications for the future of magistrates courts in that process.
246WH
Before I deal with the specific points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree, it may help if I clarify the basis on which we proceed in such matters. Magistrates courts are managed by locally based magistrates courts committees, as set out under the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Each committee is solely responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates courts in their areas. It is for the MCCs, in consultation with their relevant paying authorities, to determine how many courthouses—whether urban or rural—and what other accommodation is needed locally. In discharging their statutory responsibilities, we expect MCCs to undertake regular reviews of their accommodation requirements. That may account for the timing of the MCC in Essex, to which my hon. Friend referred earlier.
The strategic aims of the MCC, the facilities that are needed and the results of user surveys are only some of the factors that the committees take into consideration when undertaking such reviews. They have to achieve a balance between providing an efficient and effective service to their users, while maintaining secure, well-equipped court accommodation, and ensuring, when reasonably possible, full utilisation of court facilities. All magistrates court users, whether victims, witnesses, defendants or professional people, deserve an efficient service that is delivered in well-equipped and secure buildings, in accordance with basic standards of accommodation that people would expect today.
My hon. Friend gave a powerful and evocative description of the early 1970s and local justice as it was delivered then. Sadly in many ways, the world has moved on in the past 30 years. To pick up on one of his points, security is a real issue in our courts, and it would be remiss of both magistrates courts committees and the Government if we assumed that the world had not changed and that the same security provisions were appropriate. Sadly, they are not. Security is a concern for the Government, and we expect magistrates courts committees to consider that.
Most of the magistrates courts that have been closed—my hon. Friend referred to some—are those that magistrates courts committees could no longer justify keeping open, because they lacked the necessary facilities. Improvements in accommodation must be balanced against other factors, and local transport difficulties are important. My hon. Friend cited telling examples of the problems that concerned him and his constituents; we expect magistrates courts committees to take those into account.
As a Government, we are particularly concerned that courtrooms are provided that are best suited to enable cases to be listed and heard in a manner that will achieve our core aim of reducing delays in the criminal justice system. Court users want and expect their cases to be heard on the day that they are listed. Transferring work load to better equipped centres is one way of modernising and improving the overall service. The magistrates courts committees have the local knowledge and are best placed to make the judgments about how to use their resources—finance, staff and buildings. The Lord Chancellor becomes involved only in the event that a decision is challenged by the paying authority.
This is not a court closure programme, but where, for example, two courthouses are close together and the work can be accommodated in one, it makes sense to

247WH
have only one. In that way, we can maintain access to justice and release funds to improve the facilities and efficient use of our estate assets. The Lord Chancellor is committed to making better use of the court estate, which includes magistrates, Crown and county courts, and there is considerable scope for greater joint use of courthouses to create more justice centres.
Inevitably, some hard decisions will have to be taken, and we appreciate how difficult it can be for local communities to confront them. However, we also know that the public expect well-equipped and secure courthouses, and we are determined to deliver them. In the year 2000 spending review, additional money was made available to address security, health and safety, the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the maintenance backlog that many magistrates courts were experiencing. Those areas have been, and will continue to be, treated as priorities.
In 2001–02, the Department spent £25.5 million on improving magistrates courts. Interview rooms and custody areas were fitted at seven courthouses, some 10 courthouses were made compliant with the 1995 Act and custody areas in 19 courts were refurbished. We intend to spend a further £40.5 million in 2002–03. So far this year, we have provided funding to undertake extensive refurbishment of two courts, improving access to 28 courthouses for the disabled, and improving or installing closed circuit television provision in 16 courthouses. In 2001–02, some £137,458 was allocated to Essex magistrates courts committee to undertake work such as the installation of secure docks at Basildon and Southend, the removal of ligature points and cells at Colchester, and the replacement of air conditioning in the information technology room at Southend. One bid has been approved for Chelmsford in this financial year to secure a dock.
We are investing real money to improve facilities, and I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the Government's commitment. That is in addition to the continuing court-building programme, which is procured through the public-private partnership. My hon. Friend referred to the "onward march" of the private finance initiative in Essex, but we must accept that it is a way in which Government can provide more modern courtrooms. We have £70 million of credits allocated in each of the next three years, and we can now build new courthouses for the first time for many years. The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Court Service are committed to using public-private partnerships as a main element of our investment plans to improve court facilities and services. However, that approach will be adopted only where it offers the prospect of better value for money, and more effective management of risk than other methods of procurement.
Bob Spink: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Wills: I should point out that I have little time left to make my remarks.
Bob Spink: I will be quick. On value for money, would it be better to apply the money to small, local, less
248WH
formal courts that could deal with appropriate cases more quickly and efficiently, so that justice appears to be less remote?
Mr. Wills: That may always be more appropriate in certain circumstances, but not as a point of principle, which I believe was the hon. Gentleman's point. Public-private partnerships are the way forward if they offer a more effective management of risk and real value for money. The form that they will take is largely a matter for the magistrates courts committee to decide, as it has knowledge of local circumstances.
In February 2001, the Essex magistrates courts committee secured a place in the public-private partnership scheme. In July 2001, there was consultation on its proposals, and in January 2002, a second consultation exercise was undertaken on its preferred option. A package of court and office accommodation was then identified that would be provided under the scheme. During that period, the magistrates courts committee gathered information by means of feasibility studies, travel surveys and so on.
On 8 April 2002, the Essex magistrates courts committee made a final determination, under section 56(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, that its paying authorities should provide new magistrates' courthouses, in accordance with section 55(1) of the Act, in Colchester in north-east Essex, Basildon or Grays in mid-south and south-east Essex, Southend in south-east Essex, and Chelmsford in mid-north Essex. It is anticipated that the new accommodation will be available in 2006–07. The programme could include court closures, and I am sure that we are all aware that the magistrates courts committee's determination includes a new courthouse in Chelmsford to replace the Chelmsford and Witham courthouses.
The three paying authorities in Essex have until 10 May to appeal against the determination. If appeals are lodged, I will be asked to take a decision that will be final and binding on all parties. I am happy to meet all interested parties if an appeal is lodged, and to discuss points that have been raised in debate in more detail than I have time to supply today. If no appeal is submitted to the Court Service, the outline business case can be submitted to the Court Service. Once an agreement has been reached between the Court Service, the magistrates courts committee and local paying authorities on where the courts and offices should be located, the outline business case will be submitted to the project review group for formal endorsement. Once endorsed, the project will be put to the market.
Critically, the outline business case cannot be submitted to the project review group for endorsement without the full support of each of the three paying authorities that my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree knows are involved. The magistrates courts committee is endeavouring to secure agreement on a positive way forward, but with full local involvement. I cannot confirm at this stage where new courts will be located and which courts may close.
I hope that I have outlined the processes involved in the weeks ahead to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Castle Point. They will see that

249WH
there is time and scope for further representations to be made about points that they raised. Whatever happens during the process, I hope that we shall be able to reassure them about the provision of local justice in Essex. Above all, I hope that in turn they will recognise the requirement on Government to provide an effective and modern system of justice that is delivered locally, but with full account taken of the expectations of those
250WH
who use the courts. People who use courts expect modern facilities, secure accommodation, and facilities for victims and witnesses that are segregated from those for defendants wherever possible. People expect and deserve that sort of justice, and I hope that hon. Members will understand that that must be our main concern if progress is to be made in Essex.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Waste Disposal
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will issue guidance to waste disposal authorities to advise them not to enter into long-term waste disposal contracts prior to the conclusions of the review into waste policy being undertaken by the Performance and Innovation Unit. [23187]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: This should not be necessary since such contracts should be designed so as to provide sufficient flexibility to be able to take account of and respond to changed circumstances during the lifetime of the contracts, including any future statutory performance standards or new opportunities for increasing recycling and composting.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the average fine imposed on people who imported illegal meats into the country has been in each of the past 10 years; and if she will make a statement; [51771]

  (2) how many people have (a)been arrested and (b) received a fine for importing illegal meats into the country in each of the past 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [51775]

  Mr. Morley
  Central records are not available for a 10-year period.

  Last year, HM Customs and Excise arrested three people for offences under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) involving illegal meat imports. Of these, two were convicted as a CITES offence, both received prison sentence of four months. The third person was acquitted but convicted under a separate Animal Health charge resulting in a penalty of a conditional discharge for one year and costs of £100.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if radioactive waste material is used to produce(a) consumer goods and (b) other products within the UK; and which manufacturing sectors use radioactive waste in the production of their products. [51979]

  Mr. Meacher
  Radioactively contaminated metal, such as that recovered from decommissioned nuclear plant, is sometimes sold on to the scrap metal market after it has been treated to reduce its radioactivity content. In order to allow the metal to be sold, its radioactivity level must be below the 0.4 Becquerel/gram regulatory exemption 774W
  level set out in Schedule 1 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 and the Substances of Low Activity (SOLA) Exemption Order. The material is then no longer considered to be radioactive. Once it has been sold on to the scrap metal market, it is not possible to identify the products or manufacturing sectors in which it is used.

  Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many net additional staff her Department has recruited in each month since June 2001 at(a) executive officer level and (b) administrative level. [52424]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of net additional staff recruited in DEFRA between June 2001 and March 2002 is shown in the table.

  June to December 2001

  Executive officer level

  Administrative level

  Type of staff

  Headcount

  FTE

  Headcount

  FTE

  June 2001

  Permanent

  0

  0.07

  -9

  -7.29

  Casual

  111

  108.95

  131

  129.57

  Total

  111

  109.02

  122

  122.28

  July 2001

  Permanent

  2

  2.39

  3

  5.59

  Casual

  83

  82.46

  227

  223.82

  Total

  85

  84.85

  230

  229.41

  August 2001

  Permanent

  -7

  -7.00

  -8

  -5.61

  Casual

  27

  26.92

  22

  23.03

  Total

  20

  19.92

  14

  17.42

  September 2001

  Permanent

  3

  3.00

  19

  19.60

  Casual

  5

  4.46

  -24

  -26.65

  Total

  8

  7.46

  -5

  -7.05

  October 2001

  Permanent

  5

  4.95

  1

  0.97

  Casual

  99

  99.00

  66

  65.25

  Total

  104

  103.95

  67

  66.22

  November 2001

  Permanent

  14

  14.00

  10

  10.43

  Casual

  -99

  -98.41

  10

  11.47

  Total

  -85

  -84.41

  20

  21.90

  December 2001

  Permanent

  13

  13.00

  -7

  -5.94

  Casual

  -76

  -75.46

  -5

  -4.22

  Total

  -63

  -62.46

  -12

  -10.16

  January to March 2002

  Executive officer level

  Administrative level

  Type of staff

  Headcount

  FTE

  Headcount

  FTE

  January 2002

  Permanent

  8

  8.59

  -27

  -26.97

  Casual

  -21

  -21.00

  -39

  -39.24

  Total

  -13

  -12.41

  -66

  -66.21

  775W

  January to March 2002

  Executive officer level

  Administrative level

  Type of staff

  Headcount

  FTE

  Headcount

  FTE

  February 2002

  Permanent

  12

  12.05

  23

  23.46

  Casual

  -25

  -24.20

  6

  6.20

  Total

  -13

  -12.15

  29

  29.66

  March 2002

  Permanent

  19

  19.19

  35

  34.39

  Casual

  -43

  -42.02

  -10

  -10.00

  Total

  -24

  -22.83

  25

  24.39

  Totals

  Permanent

  69

  70.24

  40

  48.63

  Casual

  61

  60.70

  384

  379.23

  Total

  130

  130.94

  424

  427.86

  The high increase in the number of casual appointments between June and October 2001 is due to the additional staff required to deal with the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

  The figures for June to December 2001 relate to the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food only. Information relating to the divisions of the former Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions that transferred to DEFRA could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Veterinary Laboratory (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will establish a dedicated veterinary laboratory for Scotland. [52953]

  Mr. Morley
  The State Veterinary Service in Scotland have access to a range of existing laboratory facilities throughout Great Britain in addition to those in Scotland and have no plans to establish a dedicated facility of their own.

  Horticultural Research
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the breakdown is of Government-financed horticultural research, by crop. [52914]

  Mr. Morley
  Total Government spend on horticultural R and D by commodity is as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Bulbs

  0.3

  0.3

  0.4

  Cross commodity

  0.4

  0.4

  0.9

  Field vegetables

  3.3

  4.0

  4.2

  Hardy nursery stock

  1.2

  1.2

  1.3

  Herbs

  0.08

  0.08

  0.05

  Hops

  0.4

  0.3

  0.3

  Mushrooms

  1.0

  1.0

  10.7

  Outdoor flowers

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Potatoes

  4.7

  5.4

  5.7

  Protected crops

  2.0

  1.8

  1.5

  Soft fruit

  2.7

  2.3

  2.2

  Top fruit

  1.9

  1.7

  11.6

  1 Information from Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland not available.

  776W
  DEFRA's records are kept by commodity and not by crop. To provide a breakdown by crop could not be done without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial support for horticultural research the Government have provided in each year since 1990. [52912]

  Mr. Morley
  Government funding for horticulture R and D, including potatoes, for the last 10 years is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1992–93

  7.0

  1993–94

  8.0

  1994–95

  118.1

  1995–96

  118.9

  1996–97

  119.3

  1997–98

  18.4

  1998–99

  17.4

  1999–2000

  17.1

  2000–01

  17.8

  2001–02

  118.1

  1 Does not include funding from Department of Agricultural and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, for which information is unavailable.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs through which organisations Government support for horticultural research is provided. [52913]

  Mr. Morley
  Government support for Horticulture R and D is provided by DEFRA, SEERAD and DARDNI. Government-funded horticultural research is currently provided through a range of research institutes, universities and other research providers, as listed.

  ADAS Consulting Ltd.

  British Potato Council

  Canterbury Christchurch College

  Central Science Laboratory

  Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, NI

  Dove Associates Ltd.

  Harper Adams Agricultural College

  Higgins (formerly Gordon and Innes)

  Horticulture Research International

  Institute of Arable Crops Research

  Institute of Food Research

  John Innes Centre

  Macauley Land Use Research Institute

  Moredun Research Institute

  Rowett Research Institute

  Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh

  Scottish Agricultural College

  Scottish Crops Research Institute

  Silsoe Research Institute

  Mylnefield Research Services Ltd.

  Nottingham Trent University

  University College of North Wales

  University of Aberdeen

  University of Brighton

  University of Bristol

  University of Durham

  University of Glasgow

  University of Hertfordshire

  777W

  University of Lancaster

  University of Leeds

  University of London (Wye College)

  University of Newcastle

  University of Nottingham

  University of Reading

  University of Wales

  University of West of England

  Writtle College.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the research and development budget is for horticulture in the next three years; and if she will make a statement. [53085]

  Mr. Morley
  The DEFRA budget for horticulture R and D for 2002–03 is £9.854 million. The horticulture R and D budget for future years will be set in the light of inter alia the outcome of spending review 2002, the recent review of horticultural R and D and the forthcoming review of DEFRA's science strategy.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of Government financed horticultural research is initiated by her Department. [52915]

  Mr. Morley
  In 2000–01 (the most recent year for which details are available), DEFRA funding amounted to approximately 65 per cent. of the total Government funding for horticulture R and D.

  Agro-chemical Businesses
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she is making in respect of EU plans to review active ingredients in agro-chemical products; and if she will make a statement on the impact that rapid phasing out active ingredients will have on small UK agro-chemical businesses. [52615]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has played an active role in supporting the EU review programme for older pesticides. We believe that it is vital to ensure that all active ingredients used in pesticides meet modern standards of human and environmental safety.

  I recognise that a significant number of pesticide products will be withdrawn as a result of the review process and this will have an impact on some small agro-chemical companies. I believe that there will also be new opportunities particularly for companies developing environmentally friendly alternative methods of plant protection including certain microbial products. In developing the EU pesticides regime we will endeavour to ensure that the regulatory requirements for such products are proportionate to the risks they pose.

  Common Land
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will respond to the consultation on greater protection and better management of common land in England and Wales. [53022]
  778W
  Alun Michael
  Due to the number and complexity of the issues raised, progress has been slower than hoped. We expect to announce our proposals for future action and to publish a detailed report on the responses to the consultation paper soon.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in how many cases in England and Wales common land grazing rights have been sold separately from the land they were previously associated with since 1972. [53021]

  Alun Michael
  There is no requirement in the Commons Registration Act 1965, or other legislation, for the Commons Registration Authorities to be notified when grazing rights are separated from the land with which they were previously associated. Consequently no figures on the number of cases are available.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the implications of the House of Lords ruling in the case Bettison v Langton and others for the future management and protection of common land. [53020]

  Alun Michael
  The Bettison v Langton judgment made it conclusive in law that rights of common of grazing, registered for a fixed number of animals as required by the Commons Registration Act 1965, could be severed from the common land to which they were originally attached. This judgment could have significant implications for the management of common land.

  We have already issued guidance to the Commons Registration Authorities on how to record severance on the register of common land if they are notified it has taken place. In the consultation document "Greater Protection and Better Management of Common Land in England and Wales" we invited views on the idea of preventing severance. We expect to announce our conclusions soon.

  Fruit
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will ban imports of fruit treated with Carbaryl (Thinsec); and if she will make a statement. [52601]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]:The Department has no plans to ban imports of fruit treated with carbaryl. Carbaryl has been withdrawn from use in the UK because it was not supported by any agrochemical companies, when the relevant approvals were reviewed. However, it remains approved in other countries including some in the EC.

  Residues of carbaryl in imported fruit are controlled through the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (as amended).

  Fruit which complies with the Maximum Residue Levels set in these Regulations may be imported into the UK.

  New Forest
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs, (1) pursuant to her answer of 10 April,Official Report, column 281W, on the

  779W
  New Forest, what criteria will inform her decision on whether to call a public inquiry regarding the establishment of a national park in the New Forest; [53253]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 10 April, Official Report, column 281W, on the New Forest, what discretion she has in calling a public inquiry into the establishment of a New Forest National Park if statutory bodies and local authorities have objected; and if she will make a statement. [53252]

  Alun Michael
  As set out in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, it is a statutory requirement to hold a local inquiry if an objection is duly made by a local authority and not withdrawn, Otherwise, if any representation or objection duly made, for example by a statutory body or a member of the public, is not withdrawn, the Secretary of State has the discretion either to cause a local inquiry to be held or to afford any person who has made a representation or objection the opportunity of being heard by a person appointed for the purpose. As well as whether or not to hold an inquiry, the Secretary of State has some discretion to determine its scope. An announcement will be made soon.

  Fishing Industry
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many meetings officials from her Department had with representatives of the Cornish fishing industry in(a) March and (b) April. [53206]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department provides the Secretariat to the Objective I Fisheries Priorities Management Group in Cornwall which includes a wide representation of the Cornish fishing industry. It met on 18 March and on 22 April. Apart from that representatives of their industry, among others, participate from time to time in meetings with officials on various subjects.

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2001

  Total labour force

  397,700

  373,900

  1368,300

  2387,800

  Total income from farming per annual work unit of farmers, partners and those with an entrepreneurial interest3 (£)

  13,203

  8,159

  9,059

  —

  1 These results exclude the effect of the register improvement in England and are directly comparable with June 2000.

  2 These results include the effect of the register improvement in England and are not directly comparable with June 2000.

  3 An annual work unit (AWU) represents the equivalent of an average full-time person engaged in agriculture.

  Sources:

  June Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  Agriculture in the United Kingdom

  British Beef
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the French ban on British beef. [53033]
  780W
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the effects multilateral consultation will have on the legislative power of sea fisheries committees; and if she will make a statement; [53208]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the financial implications for local government of future additional control responsibilities for sea fisheries committee resulting from the 2002 Common Fisheries Policy review; and if she will make a statement. [53207]

  Mr. Morley
  As I have previously said, the time to take stock of all the aspects of the role and activities of Sea Fisheries Committees will be once we know the outcome of the review of the Common Fisheries Policy. That means when we have not only the overdue proposals on the CFP from the Commission but also a conclusion in the negotiations that will follow in the Council of Ministers. It would be premature to draw any conclusions in relation to Sea Fisheries Committees in advance of that.

  Farming Industry
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) bankruptcies and (b) people employed there were in the farming industry in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–2002; and what was the average income in the industry in each of these years. [51293]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: (a) Data on bankruptcies are available for England and Wales combined, and are given in the table.

  Number of bankruptcies1 in the agricultural and horticultural sector: England and Wales 1999–2001

  1999

  2000

  12001

  Bankruptcies of self-employed individuals

  183

  173

  136

  Company2 insolvencies

  75

  67

  67

  Total

  258

  240

  203

  1 First three quarters only

  2 Including partnerships

  Source:

  Department of Trade and Industry

  (b) Data on the labour force in agriculture and average income for England are given in the table.

  Total labour force in agriculture and total income from farming per whole-time person equivalent.

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that we expect France to lift its ban as soon as possible. It is for the Commission to take action to enforce EU law and it has asked France for an explanation of its failure to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Justice

  781W
  (ECJ). This is the first stage in a process which may lead to a further ECJ case against France and the imposition of penalties for failure to comply with the Court's Judgment in December 2001 that the French ban on imports of UK beef exported under the Date-based Export Scheme is illegal.

  Bristol Channel
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government are taking to monitor the illegal dumping of waste by shipping in the Bristol channel. [53421]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Waters around the UK are regularly patrolled by surveillance aircraft equipped to detect pollution. The data held for 2001–02 by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) indicate that more than 150 such flights were made under arrangements put in place by the MCA and that more than 20 per cent. of these flights covered the west or south-west of the UK and would therefore have covered part of the Bristol channel. In addition, civil and military pilots are encouraged to report sightings of pollution. Every incident spotted, or reported, is investigated and, whenever possible, those parties responsible for committing pollution offences are prosecuted.

  The UK also has legislation in place to ensure a properly planned system of waste reception facilities in ports, in order to leave no excuse for ships to resort to the unacceptable practice of discharging their waste at sea. The MCA has approved 36 waste management plans for ports or parts of ports around the Bristol channel, an area of coastline stretching from Milford Haven to Newquay. In 2000, the European Community adopted a directive to establish a port waste reception facilities system across the Community; like other member states, the UK is working on the implementation of this directive, which will come into force in December of this year.

  Rural Proofing
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the timetable is for implementing the range of rural proofing measures set out in the Rural White Paper and referred to on page 26 of the Countryside Agency's report, "Rural Proofing in 2001–02". [53312]

  Alun Michael
  Implementing rural proofing is an on-going process across Government. Individual Departments and the Countryside Agency are working together to develop rural proofing strategies and to rural proof individual policies. DEFR A officials are also involved. As the agency's first annual report recommends, the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Rural Renewal will review progress in the autumn, and take a close and continuing interest in the subject generally. The Countryside Agency will report again next year on progress with rural-proofing, so there is a regular external monitoring and evaluation process.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Staff Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what have been the total salary costs of each of the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible in each of the last five years. [50295]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The salary costs for each of the FCO's NDPBs have been as follows:British Council (UK appointed staff only, excluding national insurance contributions. Salary costs for locally appointed staff cannot be collated in the time available)

  1999–2000—£27,890,986

  2000–01—£28,753,593

  2001–02—£29,400,401

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission
  No salary costs (the salaries of the Secretariat are paid by the Association of Commonwealth Universities)

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  1997–98—£214,398

  1998–99—£260,607

  1999–2000—£315,192

  2000–01—£331,179

  Great Britain China Centre

  1997–98—£119,555

  1998–99—£133,713

  1999–2000—£137,719

  2000–01—£144,545

  British-Russia Centre

  1999–2000—£127,591

  2000–01—£115,639

  2001–02—£106,616

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe

  1999–2000—£124,238

  2000–01—£137,533

  2001–02—£138,788

  Diplomatic Service Appeals Board
  No salary costs (chairman and members are paid per diem and travel allowances)

  Government Hospitality Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine
  No salary costs

  Wilton Park Academic Council
  No salary costs (travel expenses only are paid)

  Foreign Compensation Commission
  Employs one person, salary band: 2001–02—£20,240-£29,732.

  The above are the figures presently available. In some cases the 2001–02 figures are not yet available, and in some, earlier figures could not be located in the time available.

  Private Simon Jeans
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in the last three years consular staff in(a) London and (b) Zagreb have offered help to the family of Private Simon Jeans. [51739]
  783W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since the tragic death of Private Simon Jeans, our consular staff in London and Zagreb have offered full consular assistance to his family. It is difficult to be precise on the exact numbers of contacts and representations made with them, but there have been many. We approached the Croatian courts on numerous occasions for information about the case, and attended all court hearings with Private Jeans' family. Our consular division in London last spoke with Simon Jeans' father, Terry, in May 2001, and our pro-consul in Split last met with Mr. Jeans in August 2001, when he visited Croatia.

  The hon. Member will be aware that Private Jeans was a serving member of the British Army at the time of his death. As such, the Ministry of Defence was and continue to be the lead Department in this case. Private Jeans' family are aware there is very little our consular staff can do with regards to the case in Croatia, as it is now a legal matter. Under international law we are unable to get involved in the judicial process of other countries. Nevertheless, Mr. Jeans and the MOD have been in regular touch.

  Germany
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department has taken since 1 January to assist Catherine Meyer regain custody of her sons through the German courts. [51503]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Catherine Meyer is currently pursuing legal proceedings before the German constitutional court to be reunited with her sons. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has provided consular support and assistance to Catherine Meyer with her case in the past. As with any child abduction case, we continue to provide consular assistance whenever we can.

  Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many net additional staff his Department has recruited in each month since June 2001 at(a) executive officer level and (b) administrative level. [52435]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has recruited the following net additional permanent staff since June 2001.

  Month

  Executive officer level

  Administrative level

  June 2001

  -2

  19

  July 2001

  -3

  20

  August 2001

  0

  15

  September 2001

  0

  25

  October 2001

  11

  28

  November 2001

  6

  17

  December 2001

  -4

  -1

  January 2002

  6

  22

  February 2002

  -1

  21

  March 2002

  5

  22

  April 2002

  1

  23

  Total

  19

  211

  Diplomatic Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of 784W
  (a) the Diplomatic Service and (b) British ambassadors and high commissioners attended (i) Oxford or Cambridge universities and (ii) independent schools. [53234]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Davidson) on 25 March 2002, Official Report, column 611W and 15 April 2002, Official Report, columns 725–26W.

  European Commission (Phase-in Proposals)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's position is on the European Commission's phase-in proposals for the receipt by newly admitted member states of the European Union of(a) funds due under the Common Agricultural Policy and (b) structural funds. [51623]

  Peter Hain
  (a) The Government consider that agricultural spending should support restructuring in the candidate countries to modernise their agricultural economies. The Government therefore welcome the emphasis on rural development in the Commission's proposals as this is the most effective way to help new member states restructure agriculture sectors. As regards the proposal to phase in direct payments, the Government note the arguments provided in the Commission's issues paper about the damaging effects of high direct payments in the new member states. The Government consider it important to evaluate fully all relevant aspects, including whether other options may better help restructuring.

  (b) The Government welcome the emphasis within the overall financing proposals on Structural and Cohesion Funds, to tackle the new member states' restructuring and developmental needs. The sums provided will need to respect the budget ceilings agreed at Berlin in 1999, as well as the needs and the absorption capacity of the new member states.

  Czech Republic
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the Benes decrees in the Czech Republic are compatible with the acquis communautaire. [51625]

  Peter Hain
  The European Commission has made it clear that the Benes decrees are part of history and that those decrees relating to citizenship and property are no longer of legal consequence, and are therefore not an issue for EU accession negotiations. The Commission and Czech Republic are reviewing the other decrees to clarify their legal status.

  Slovakia
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will remove the visa requirements imposed on Slovak nationals for travel to the UK; and if he will make a statement. [51932]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on 3 April 2002, Official Report, column 1063W.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Chartered Engineers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many chartered engineers there are in her Department; and what grades they are. [52471]

  Dr. Howells
  There are no chartered engineers currently employed within my Department.

  ITV Digital
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the future of ITV Digital. [53218]

  Tessa Jowell
  In my statement on ITV Digital on 26 April 2002,Official Report, column 594, I promised that I would continue to keep the House updated in coming weeks. Since then, the administrator has surrendered the three multiplex service licences held by ITV Digital, and the pay services are no longer available.

  As I suggested would happen in my statement last week, the Independent Television Commission is now beginning a re-tendering process, on an accelerated time scale with a view to awarding licences at the end of a six-week period. I understand that, during this period, the ITC will liaise with the administrator and broadcasters providing the digital terrestrial free-to-air services with a view to ensuring that ITV Digital subscribers will continue to be able to receive these channels, including the five main terrestrial channels, through their set top box. We expect that companies interested may wish to use the ITV Digital assets, and that they will liaise with the administrator to do so. There is a real opportunity to benefit from the expertise and technical experience now existing, enabling a successful business to emerge, and ensuring we maintain our world leadership in digital television.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what level of financial support Granada and Carlton have received from her Department for introducing digital services. [53603]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department gives no financial support to Granada and Carlton. To promote the availability of digital free-to-air television services, the Government have set the percentage of qualifying multiplex revenue payable by digital terrestrial licensees at nil for the duration of their licences. This means that the ITV companies do not make payments to the Treasury on the proportion of their advertising revenue attributed to viewing in homes that have digital television.

  Pride of Place
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many copies of "Pride of Place" have been(a) sent to end recipients and (b) sold. [52987]

  Dr. Howells
  "Pride of Place" was released towards the end of March and the Arts Council is still sending out the 3,500 complimentary copies to projects who received awards over the past six years. No copies have as yet been sold.

  West Coast Main Line
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the effect on tourism in the north-west of proposed closures of the west coast main line; and if she will make a statement. [53120]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Any disruption of tourism will be unwelcome, but weekend closures, while disruptive to tourism, are unavoidable if essential work is to take place. Any closures are considered by Railtrack, train operating companies, the relevant rail passenger committees and the Strategic Rail Authority. I am advised the weekend closures are preferable to closures during the week which would cause wider disruption for business as well as leisure travellers. The closures have been planned to avoid the Commonwealth games. The tourism industry, like other business sectors, will be looking forward to benefiting from the main line upgrade. Improved rail services are essential to ensure the long-term health of the tourism industry in the north-west.

  Solar Panels
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what buildings owned by her Department have solar panels installed. [53498]

  Dr. Howells
  All DCMS buildings are leased rather than owned freehold and none presently has solar panels.

  Sport (Female Participation)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action the Government are taking to increase female participation in sport. [53422]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are determined to ensure that there is equal opportunity for all. Our policy is aimed at encouraging everyone, including women and girls, into sport. Sport England provides over £6 million of exchequer funding to sports governing bodies and all are required to ensure that they have proposals for the development of women as a condition of funding. Sport England also fund the Women's Sports Foundation (WSF) which is the only organisation in the UK that is solely committed to improving and promoting opportunities for women and girls in sport at every level. More women than ever are finding that regular physical exercise can lead to improvements in health, self-confidence and well-being. Women's team sports such as football and rugby are among the fastest-growing sports in the country.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will place in the Library copies of each version of the internal guidance which have been drawn up by his Department since 1 January 1999 to assist staff in his Department to answer subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998. [53387]

  Dr. Howells
  A copy of the following documents will be placed in the Library:

  Acceptable Use of E-mail and Internet Policy

  Data Protection Guidance for Personnel

  Guidance Note on Public Appointments and Subject Access

  Principles of Data Protection.

DEFENCE

  RAF Benson
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many married quarters there are at RAF Benson; and how many of them are(a) under repair and (b) waiting repair; [50818]

  (2) if he will make a statement on married quarters at RAF Benson; [50820]

  (3) what representations he has received about relations between the Defence Housing Executive and RAF Benson. [50819]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: There are 599 family quarters at RAF Benson. Of the few that are vacant, two cannot be occupied until repairs are completed. One of the two will be converted for a special needs family.

  Approximately 42 per cent. of the properties managed by the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) have repairs raised against them at any one time. These can embrace a wide range of jobs, from major refurbishment such as re-roofing, down to the replacement of a tap washer.

  I have received no specific representations about the DHE from RAF Benson, but the DHE is aware of the need continuously to improve the service it provides to all service families. In the area in question, the DHE has changed the firm contracted to provide works service management.

  Arms Sales (Africa)
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of arms sales to individual countries in Africa in each year since 1997. [51578]

  Dr. Moonie
  The data requested are set out in the table.

  £ million

  Total country

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Egypt

  0.94

  0.49

  2.21

  7.48

  11.12

  Morocco

  0.31

  0.05

  0.30

  0.94

  1.60

  Tunisia

  0.01

  0.03

  0.03

  —

  0.07

  Libya

  —

  —

  0.01

  —

  0.01

  Botswana

  2.96

  1.65

  1.71

  0.74

  7.06

  Ghana

  0.14

  3.39

  0.01

  0.19

  3.73

  Kenya

  0.02

  2.15

  0.48

  0.54

  3.19

  Malawi

  0.02

  —

  —

  —

  0.02

  Mauritius

  0.01

  0.01

  0.04

  —

  0.06

  South Africa

  0.11

  1.27

  1.89

  1.40

  4.67

  Zambia

  0.02

  0.13

  0.02

  —

  0.17

  Zimbabwe

  0.22

  0.05

  0.06

  0.04

  0.37

  Cameroon

  —

  0.02

  —

  —

  0.02

  Central African Republic

  —

  0.01

  —

  —

  0.01

  Gambia

  —

  —

  0.27

  —

  0.27

  Nigeria

  —

  0.17

  0.26

  1.55

  1.98

  Swaziland

  —

  0.01

  —

  —

  0.01

  Tanzania

  —

  1.51

  —

  —

  1.51

  Sierra Leone

  —

  —

  0.37

  1.06

  1.43

  Total

  4.76

  10.94

  7.66

  13.94

  37.30

  These figures are derived from table 1.13 of the Ministry of Defence publication "UK Defence Statistics 2001". The information is also published in Part III of the Government's annual report on "Strategic Export Controls". Copies of both documents are available from the Library of the House.
  788W
  Figures for 2001 are not yet available.

  Parachute Training
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many training jumps from(a) balloons and (b) aircraft recruits to the Parachute Regiment are required to make as part of their training; [52592]

  (2) what aircraft are used by the Royal Air Force to provide parachute training for recruits to the parachute regiment; and if he will make a statement on the adequacy of capacity to provide this basic training. [52593]

  Mr. Ingram
  Recruits to the parachute regiment are required to complete a minimum of eight jumps from aircraft in order to qualify as a military parachutist. The use of balloons ceased in 1995. Basic parachute training is carried out from RAF Brize Norton and the aircraft used are a Skyvan, for an initial familiarisation jump, and a C130 Hercules, for the remaining qualifying jumps. During the last financial year, four basic parachute courses were cancelled due to Hercules aircraft unavailability, caused by operational commitments. Although this has had no effect on the ability of the regiment to carry out its assigned duties we are currently looking at how greater use of the Skyvan could reduce the Hercules requirement to support the basic parachute course to the essential minimum number of jumps that must be done from the operational platform.

  Porton Down
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) titles and (b) classmarks are of documents placed in the Public Record Office by his Department since 1972 regarding an official inquiry in 1970 into allegations that the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment Porton Down had experimented on old people for germ warfare purposes; and if he will make a statement. [53349]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 23 April 2001 Official Report, column 96W. These documents are still in the process of being transferred to the Public Record Office.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates between 1 January 1997 and 1 January 1999 the Independent Ethics Committee overseeing human experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down discussed the question of the possible long-term effects of nerve gas on humans during its meetings. [53385]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Independent Ethics Committee overseeing the conduct of the Service Volunteer Programme at Defence Science and Technology Laboratory Porton Down has not discussed the possible long-term effects of exposure to nerve agents during any of its meetings between 1 January 1997 and 1 January 1999.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report produced by the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down in 1987 entitled 'A Quantitative Investigation into the Effects of Pupil Diameter and Defocus on Contrast Sensitivity for an Extended Range of Spatial Frequencies in Natural and Homatropinized Eyes'. [53364]
  789W
  Dr. Moonie
  No report with that title has been produced by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory Porton Down or its predecessors. I believe the hon. Member is referring to a report published in the journal Ophthalmic Physiology Optics by a research group from the university of Glasgow (Ophthal. Physiol. Opt. Volume 7, numbers 1, 21–30, 1987).

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report produced by the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down in 1985 entitled 'Evaluation of Pyrodostigmine Bromide as a Pretreatment for Nerve Agent Poisoning in Man'. [53363]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the protocol drawn up by the Chemical Defence Establishment for the experiment which was recorded in 1973 in the report entitled "A Comparative Study of Central Visual Field Changes Induced by GB Vapour and Physostigmine Salicylate Eyedrops". [53345]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the early 1970s formal protocols did not exist in the form which is recognised today. The details of the proposals would be recorded within the minutes of the committees overseeing the research undertaken within the Service Volunteer programme.

  I am withholding these minutes in accordance with Exemption 2b of the Code of Practice to Access to Government Information, relating to internal advice and discussion.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 316W, regarding Porton Down, if he will place in the Library a copy of the protocol drawn up by the Chemical Defence Establishment for the experiment which was recorded in 1973 in the report entitled "The Effects of a Chemical Agent on the Eyes of Aircrew"; on what dates the Ethics Committee overseeing the human experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down scrutinised this experiment; and if he will place in the Library copies of the papers of the Committee which relate to the discussion of this experiment. [53412]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the early 1970s formal protocols did not exist in the form which is recognised today. The details of the proposals would be recorded within the minutes of the committees overseeing the research undertaken within the Service Volunteer programme.

  The research study referred to is detailed in the minutes of the 78th meeting on 31 January 1972 of the Committee on Safety of Human Experiments. I am withholding these minutes in accordance with Exemption 2b of the Code of Practice to Access to Government Information, relating to internal advice and discussion.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates since 1 January 1999 the Independent Ethics Committee overseeing human experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down has discussed the question of the possible long-term effects of(a) mustard gas and (b) pepper gas on humans during its meetings. [53384]
  790W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Independent Ethics Committee overseeing the conduct of the Service Volunteer Programme at Defence Science and Technology Laboratory Porton Down has not discussed the possible long-term effects of exposure to either mustard gas or pepper gas during any of its meetings between 1 January 1997 and 1 January 1999.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of the documents held by his Department relating to a meeting on 5 February of representatives from his Department and the Medical Research Council Liaison Group regarding the epidemiological study into the health of service personnel who took part in experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down. [53348]

  Dr. Moonie
  Requests for the release of papers relating to the meetings of the Medical Research Council (MRC) Liaison Group should be addressed to the MRC. The Ministry of Defence has not produced any documents relating to this meeting and holds no papers, except the invitation and meeting agenda.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 72W, regarding Porton Down, which agencies conducted the searches of his Department's archives; what the locations were of the archives which were searched; and if he will make a statement. [53414]

  Dr. Moonie
  Searches of the Department's archives at the Public Record Office, the Imperial War Museum, the Ministry of Defence main archive at Hayes, and documents held by MOD in London and at Porton Down, have been conducted by staff at MOD and Defence Science and Technology Laboratory Porton Down.

  In addition, two signals have been sent requesting service units to search their own archives for relevant documents. The first, in February 2001, was sent to all service units world wide. The second, in April 2002, was sent to all RAF units in the United Kingdom. Both signals were sent in collaboration with the Wiltshire police as part of Operation Antler, their investigation of the Porton Down Service Volunteer programme.

  The Wiltshire police have also conducted independent searches of the Department's archives.

  Primary Casualty Receiving Ship
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with the introduction of the primary casualty receiving ship. [53515]

  Dr. Moonie
  Work is progressing to plan. The Ministry of Defence is considering options for meeting the requirement as part of initial assessment work. The primary casualty receiving ship capability remains on target to enter service later this decade.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 April 2002,Official Report, column 194W, on nuclear weapons, upon what evidence he relies for his statement on the wide agreement regarding the transparency of the UK with regard to its holdings of nuclear weapons. [53467]
  791W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: Moves in the Strategic Defence Review to increase transparency on nuclear weapons issues were widely welcomed. For an instance of support for the example set by the UK in this area, I refer the hon. Member to remarks quoted by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in their Eighth Report of Session 1999–2000 (HC 407) at paragraph 122. Commendation of the UK's transparency was also offered by some of those giving written evidence to that inquiry.

  Depleted Uranium
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in developing a test for depleted uranium for Gulf and Balkans veterans; and if he will make a statement. [54185]

  Dr. Moonie
  Contracts have been placed with five laboratories to carry out a pilot study to determine a test that will identify the presence of depleted uranium in urine. The pilot exercise will examine a number of different methods and establish whether a suitably accurate, precise and sensitive test is available. Following assessment of the results of the pilot exercise, arrangements for the main voluntary testing programme will be put in place. If a suitable test is identified, the voluntary test is likely to be available in October 2002.

  It is extremely important that the method of testing be credible to all parties. This pilot exercise is a vital step in ensuring that the correct test is chosen so that both veterans and the Ministry of Defence can have confidence in the results of the voluntary testing programme.

  Prisoners (Afghanistan)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance has been issued to United Kingdom armed forces undertaking(a) Operation Jacana and (b) Operation Fingal with regard to the status of prisoners taken as part of these operations; and if he will make a statement. [52111]

  Mr. Hoon
  Any prisoners taken by Operation Jacana forces during offensive operations will be treated as prisoners of war. Operational Fingal forces, who are part of the International Security Assistance Force providing security assistance to the Interim Administration in Kabul, are not expected to be involved in operations that may involve the taking of prisoners.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Offices
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effect that Post Office redundancies will have on the communities in Lancashire; and what the Government will do to help those people who will lose their jobs. [48603]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Consignia board decided that the company's costs needed to be reduced to stem its losses and improve its performance. At the moment it is not immediately clear what the effect in Lancashire will be. It is understood that up to 140 jobs will eventually be affected, although it is not known at this stage how many of these will actually be job losses. The company will 792W
  offer as many of those affected as possible the option of continued employment with a different part of the business or a voluntary redundancy package.

  The Government will do everything we can through the Jobcentre Plus and other agencies to provide support, assistance and new opportunities to those people losing their jobs.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effect that Post Office redundancies will have on the communities in Wales; and what the Government will do to help those people who will lose their jobs. [48604]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Consignia board decided that the company's costs needed to be reduced to stem its losses and improve its performance. At the moment it is not immediately clear what the effect in Wales will be. It is understood that up to 125 jobs will eventually be affected, although it is not known at this stage how many of these will actually be job losses. The company will offer as many of those affected as possible the option of continued employment with a different part of the business or a voluntary redundancy package.

  The Government will do everything we can through the Jobcentre Plus and other agencies to provide support, assistance and new opportunities to those people losing their jobs.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) urban and (b) rural post offices are facing closure in Northern Ireland. [51947]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: Post office closures are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. The programme of urban restructuring has not yet begun.

  The Government are committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices. We are also committed to providing transitional assistance to rural post offices and are developing proposals in the light of advice from Postcomm.

  Consignia
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department has had talks with the Dutch postal company TPG in the past year. [49945]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Department has met representatives of the Dutch postal company, TPG, on a limited number of occasions to examine specific aspects of a possible merger of Consignia's postal activities with them. No satisfactory agreement was reached between the companies on a merger and Ministers therefore agreed with the company that discussions should cease.

  Since the Government have given Consignia commercial freedom, within the public sector, it is entirely appropriate that Consignia has been considering its commercial strategy, including the possibility of relationships or joint ventures with other operators.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she was notified by the management of Consignia of negotiations which have taken place within the last 12 months regarding a potential sale of an equity share in the business. [51244]
  793W
  Mr. Alexander
  In the last 12 months, Consignia notified the Department about its intention to explore the possibility of a merger of its postal activities with the Dutch Post Office (TPG) in June last year. Talks commenced in July but have ceased as no satisfactory agreement was reached.

  Postcomm
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what negotiations have taken place with Postcomm on the sale of postal services. [51380]

  Mr. Alexander
  Postcomm's document "Proposals for effective competition in UK postal services" issued on 31 January has been a public consultation and the Government have consistently encouraged stakeholders to make their views known to Postcomm.

  We believe it is important now for stakeholders to engage in an effective dialogue and to reach a common understanding. This is the nature of a consultation process and we would expect Postcomm to take due account of all the views expressed and to consider their implications. We will obviously be following these discussions closely.

  The Budget
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes the Budget of 17 April will make to business in Herefordshire. [51653]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I am pleased to support the Budget measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17 April. I expect the Budget changes to help businesses in Herefordshire become more competitive and productive. Herefordshire has an above-average number of small businesses, which will benefit from a reduction in the starting rate of corporation tax from 10 per cent. to zero and a 10 per cent. cut in the small companies' rate; a reduction in the red tape and compliance costs imposed by the VAT and payroll administration systems; and a new £30 million training fund to bring small businesses up to the Investors in People industry standard. Further details of these measures, and of other measures to benefit businesses of all sizes, can be found on www.budget.treasury.gov.uk. The Hereford and Worcester Chamber of Commerce and Business Link (on 0800 104010) can also provide advice on the impact of the Budget on business activity.

  Business Promotion (Schools)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been done since 1997 in the West Midlands to promote business in schools. [51482]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 24 April 2002]: Key programmes in schools include: Enterprise Insight and the Enterprising Schools initiative.

  Since 1997, activities have included getting children of primary school age to experience the world of work, and the funding of local Education Business Partnerships so that pupils could undertake work placements.

  The Excellence in Cities initiative has provided learning mentors from the world of business who act as role models when they visit schools.
  794W
  The DfES Teacher Placement Service helps teachers to spend time in industry.

  I am encouraging local successful entrepreneurs to return to their school and talk about the exciting opportunities and challenges in business.

  Newspaper Supply
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when the Office of Fair Trading will publish its response to the consultation on the review of the Newspaper Supply Code of Practice; [53007]

  (2) how many responses the Office of Fair Trading received from (a) retailers, (b) wholesalers, (c) publishers and (d) other bodies, relating to the review on the Code of Practice for the Supply of Newspapers. [52999]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Director General of Fair Trading has not yet concluded his work on the review. The numbers of responses will be included when the review is published.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what training is available to new entrants to the sub-post office network(a) prior to them taking on a business, and (b) following the acquisition and start of that business with respect to funding by her Department. [52328]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: Training sub-postmasters is a management matter for Post Office Ltd. The small business service and business links are open to the business community including sub-postmasters.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. [52327]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: I met Colin Baker, the General Secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters on 24 April.

  Motor Accident Repairs
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints have been received by the Office of Fair Trading concerning the motor accident repair market since January 2001. [52243]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The OFT compiles figures on the number of consumer complaints received by trading standards departments in the UK.

  19,588 complaints were received between 1 January and 30 September 2001. Later figures are not yet available.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement on how each of the points in the OFT's letter of remedy on supermarket/supplier relations is met in the code of practice issued in October 2001; [52931]

  (2) when the code of practice on supermarket relations with suppliers was issued; and on what dates between the publication of the Competition Commission's report on

  795W
  the subject and the issuing of codes her Ministers and officials met (a) representatives of supermarkets and (b) representatives of agricultural and horticultural producers; [52930]

  (3) what consultation took place with (a) consumers' representatives and (b) members of the public on the code of practice on supermarket/supplier relations; whether a draft code was issued; and how many representations she received on the code (i) before and (ii) after its publication. [52932]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 18 December 2001 that, following an adverse report by the Competition Commission under the Fair Trading Act 1973, she had accepted undertakings from the four main supermarket chains that they would abide by a Code of Practice concerning their relations with their suppliers.

  Normally undertakings are negotiated by the Director General of Fair Trading with the parties who will be asked to sign them; there is no third party involvement. Exceptionally, at the recommendation of the Competition Commission, supplier organisations were in this case given the opportunity to comment on a draft.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry received around 35 representations on the Code before it was issued on 18 December, and around five afterwards.

  The Code came into force on 17 March 2002. The Director General of Fair Trading will monitor the operation of the Code.

  Motor Body Repairers
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many insurance company-owned motor body shop repairers there are in England and Wales. [53065]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not collected by the Department. However, according to data collected by the Retail Motor Industry Federation (RMIF), there are 21 insurance company owned motor body shop repairers in England and Wales.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many independent motor body repairers there were in England and Wales in each year since 1997. [53064]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information required is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1997

  12,700

  1998

  11,300

  1999

  10,000

  2000

  8,000

  2001

  6,500

  2002

  5,800

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of employees who will not receive payment for the forthcoming Queen's Golden Jubilee bank holiday. [53339]

  Alan Johnson
  The autumn 2001 Labour Force Survey indicates that 17 per cent. of workers are not paid for bank holidays generally. There are no specific estimates covering the Queen's Golden Jubilee bank holiday.

  TRIPs Agreement
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans there are to revise the WTO TRIPs agreement to allow staple food crops to be patented; [53354]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the patenting of staple food crops. [53353]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The TRIPs agreement allows the Governments of WTO member states to decide for themselves whether to allow the patenting of plants in their own countries. However, the agreement does require WTO member states to protect plant varieties by other legal means if patents are not available. The UK supports this flexibility in the agreement and there are no plans to remove it.

  The TRIPs agreement also confirms the internationally established principle that it is not possible to be granted a valid patent for something which is already known. According to this principle, neither traditional varieties of staple food crops nor related traditional knowledge can be patentable in themselves, even in countries where the patenting of plants is allowed.

  EU Trade
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the United Kingdom's(a) visible and (b) invisible imports come from the European Union; and what their value was in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [51621]

  Ms Hewitt
  According to information published by the Office for National Statistics on 27 March 2002, in 2001 the EU accounted for 52 per cent. of UK imports of goods and 53 per cent. of UK imports of services. UK imports of goods from the EU were worth £115.5 billion while UK imports of services from the EU were worth £34.5 billion.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportions of the United Kingdom's(a) visible and (b) invisible exports go to the European Union; and what their value was in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [51620]

  Ms Hewitt
  According to information published by the Office for National Statistics on 27 March 2002, in 2001 the EU accounted for 58 per cent. of UK exports of goods and 40 per cent. of UK exports of services. UK exports of goods to the EU were worth £110.8 billion while UK exports of services to the EU were worth £31.0 billion.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals the Government are putting
  797W
  to the European Commission on structural funds in the European Union for its third report on structural funds. [51624]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government have not yet put any formal proposals to the European Commission for its Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, which is not due to he published until late 2003 or early 2004. However, from my statement at the Namur Informal Council on Regional Policy in July 2001, the Commission will be aware of the Government's view that the next reform of the Structural Funds must ensure that they contribute better to the Lisbon agenda of improving Europe's competitiveness and modernising its economies. Improvements are needed in both the effectiveness of the funds and the means to evaluate their impact and added value. Also, greater efforts must be made to simplify the funds and remove unnecessary bureaucracy, while maintaining proper financial control.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to inform(a) business and (b) the public about the implications of EU enlargement for the United Kingdom. [51622]

  Ms Hewitt
  EU enlargement is vital to the future peace, prosperity and strength of Europe and will directly benefit the British public and business. My Department has published papers on EU enlargement for British business, such as "EU Enlargement and the Single Market: Opportunities for Business" published in September 2000, which focused both on the enlargement process and the commercial opportunities. I have placed a copy in the Libraries of the House. As well as regular contacts between my officials and business players, we are planning, in conjunction with the FCO, an expanded programme of activities for 2002, including speaking events, newsletters and a new enlargement section on DTI's website.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office lead on the wider public diplomacy strategy, aimed at informing the British public about EU enlargement. They provide general information on enlargement through publications like "Britain: A Champion of EU Enlargement", their website and by providing speakers for and organising events.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Sixth Forms and Colleges
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many A-level) pass certificates were awarded to students in(a) sixth forms in mainstream schools and (b) colleges of further education in England in each year from 1995 to 2001; [52585]

  (2) how many students completed A-level courses at (a) sixth forms in mainstream schools and (b) colleges of further education in England and Wales in each year from 1995 to 2001. [52589]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested for England is shown in the table.
  798W

  (a) Mainstream schools

  (b) FE sector colleges

  Number of 17-year-olds entered for GCE A-levels

  1994–95

  89,868

  54,284

  1995–96

  91,796

  57,636

  1996–97

  100,281

  62,308

  1997–98

  105,855

  62,582

  1998–99

  106,857

  60.328

  1999–2000

  108,134

  59,168

  2000–01

  111,141

  59,133

  Number of GCE A-levels resulting in a pass1

  1994–95

  231,709

  122,603

  1995–96

  247,198

  133,503

  1996–97

  274,574

  149,929

  1997–98

  293,596

  153,805

  1998–99

  298,692

  151,447

  1999–2000

  303,762

  150,627

  2000–01

  314,274

  157,179

  1 Grades A-E

  The information for schools and colleges in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Education Statistics
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what corrections have been made to the Statistics of Education in England(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001 editions; if she will list the tables that needed correcting with amendments after each of the volumes were published; and what steps were taken to notify those who received the volumes of such corrections. [44400]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 19 March 2002]: No errata were issued in 1999, 2000 or 2001 for the following volumes:

  Local Labour Force Survey

  Public Examinations GCSE/GNVQ and GCE/AGNVQ in England

  Student Support England and Wales

  Higher Education Statistics in the UK

  National Curriculum Assessments of 7, 11 and 14-year-olds by local education authority.

  Education Statistics for the United Kingdom

  In 1999 and 2001 there were typographical errors in the volume titled, "Education Statistics for the United Kingdom" and in 2000 there were errors with three single figures. These referred to time series data. The first was in table 2.1 (1990–91 figures), the second in table 3.1 (1998–99 figures) and the third in table 3.24 (1995 figures).

  No erratum notes were issued for these errors. They were, however, noted and corrected in the volume the following year.

  Schools in England

  In 1999 there was an error in the Schools in England volume on table 12. The column listing the pupils' ages was incorrectly labelled for the three and four-year-olds. No erratum was issued.

  There were no amendments to the volume for 2000.

  In the 2001 volume, tables 13, 36, 47a, 47h and 48 contain incorrect data. This was due to a programming error which was not identified until after the volume was published. A note has been placed on the IX-ES Statistical website informing customers of the errors.
  799W
  Teachers in England

  There were several errors detected in the "Teachers in England 2001" volume as follows:

  General:
  There are no footnotes stating that totals may vary due to rounding.

  Tables 7(i), (ii),and (iii):
  The total rows for men and for women (though not for men and women) have not been correctly tabbed, so that they appear in the wrong columns

  Table 12:
  The calculation of the London turnover and wastage rates originally used an incorrect definition of Inner and Outer London. The actual figures differ slightly from those published.

  Table 14:
  The 1999 entry for Education elsewhere: Qualified teachers currently reads 3060, whereas it should read 3950

  Table 24:
  The headings on the right hand page (53) are the same as those on the left, and need correcting as follows:

  Existing heading

  Required heading

  Education

  Social studies

  Medicine

  Language studies

  Technology

  Arts other than languages

  Agriculture

  Music, drama and visual arts

  Mathematics

  Other

  Other Science

  Total all subjects

  Table 25:
  The left table (p. 54) has the sub-headings 'Special and PRU' and `Total'. The right table (continued) headings should correspond: they currently read 'Special' and 'All Sectors'. Some of the sub-headings in the right table are not in bold.

  Table 39:
  The left table (p. 72) has the sub-heading 'Special and PRU'. The right table (continued) heading should correspond: it currently reads 'Special'.

  Table 48:
  The title should read Retirements: Type of award by last known sector of service and grade: 2000–01 rather than … grade: 1999–2000.

  These volumes are issued by the Stationery Office rather than the Department. Corrected version can be downloaded free of charge from the Department's webs ite.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of girls excluded from full-time education were pregnant, broken down by regions in each of the last 10 years. [51532]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information on the number of pregnant girls excluded from school is not collected centrally.

  Public-private Partnnerships
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) for what reason she rejected Surrey county council's PPP application; [52513]
  800W
  (2) if she will list the local education authorities which received backing from her Department for PPP schemes in the past 12 months; and for what purpose those applications were made; [52534]

  (3) if she will list the LEAs which have applied for PPP funding in the past 12 months, and the purposes for which those applications were made. [52535]

  John Healey
  The application from Surrey local education authority (LEA) for PFI credits in 2003–04 was not supported as it did not meet the criteria, as set out in the guidance issued to LEAs on 31 July 2001, to the same extent as those applications from other authorities which were supported. Officials from the Department are arranging to meet with officers from Surrey LEA to provide detailed feedback and to explore how the application might be strengthened for future years.

  Details of those authorities that were prioritised for provisional PFI credit support were announced in a Press Notice on 26 March, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  53 bids were received in the recent PFI capital round, with a total value of over £3 billion and an average value of over £56 million. In exercises of this nature, there are inevitably some worthwhile potential projects which do not receive funding. However, officials from the Department are responding to requests for advice on how these applications can be strengthened for the future. It would incur disproportionate costs to provide details of every LEA which applied for funding, successful or otherwise, and the full purposes of their applications.

  Teachers' Pay
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what cost of living allowances will be paid, over and above basic salaries, to teachers in(a) Surrey and (b) London in this financial year. [52523]

  Mr. Timms
  Teachers working in inner London, outer London and the London fringe areas are paid mandatory London allowances at the following values:

  Inner London: £3,105

  Outer London: £2,043

  Fringe: £792.

  Teachers working at schools in inner London, and the outer London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Brent, Ealing, Haringey, Merton, and Newham receive the inner London allowance. Teachers working in all other outer London boroughs receive the outer London allowance. Teachers in all areas of Surrey outside the metropolitan area receive the fringe allowance.

  In addition, schools nay pay recruitment and retention allowances to individual teachers of up to £5,262 per annum.

  Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to encourage entry into the teaching profession in areas where the cost of living is high. [52574]
  801W
  Mr. Timms
  The Government have introduced a number of measures, including training bursaries and "golden hellos", to boost teacher recruitment nationally. These are already having an effect, and there are nearly 10.000 more teachers in post now compared to January 2001—the largest increase in a single year since the 1970s.

  We have also reformed the teachers' pay system to ensure that those teachers who perform well are well rewarded. The introduction of the threshold for experienced teachers, leading to the upper pay scale, has provided a career structure which will allow our best classroom teachers, in time, to earn over £32,000 at today's rates, excluding additional allowances. And we have implemented cost of living pay rises at above inflation rates for all teachers in each of the last four years.

  All teachers working in the London area are paid mandatory London allowances on top of their basic salary. These allowances were increased last year by 30 per cent. and are currently inner—£3,105; outer—£2,043; and fringe—£792. In addition, schools are able to pay recruitment and retention allowances to individual teachers of up to £5,262 per annum. Schools can decide to pay this as a lump sum covering up to three years.

  It is open to local authorities to help teachers with housing, relocation and travel costs through the Recruitment and Retention Fund established by my Department. We have made £77 million available to 2003 for this purpose. And we have made £250 million available to 2004 to help key public sector workers, particularly nurses, teachers and police, to buy homes in or near the communities they serve through our starter home initiative scheme.

  South Middlesbrough Academy
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 11 April 2002,Official Report, column 519W, what conditions have been attached to the sponsorship by Sir Peter Vardy of the proposed South Middlesbrough Academy. [53401]

  Mr. Timms
  We understand that the sponsors have agreed with Middlesbrough LEA that the City Academy should have a Christian ethos and serve pupils aged 11–18. The proposals that the partnership have developed reflect those preferences.

  Specialist Status Schools
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the targets agreed by Sir John Cass's Foundation Redcoat School, London borough of Tower Hamlets local education authority, at the time of its acquisition of specialist status, identifying those not yet achieved. [53454]

  Mr. Timms
  Sir John Cass's Foundation Redcoat School has been operating as a language college since September 2000. The information requested is being collated. I will therefore write to the hon. Member as soon as possible giving a full reply to the question raised.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the targets agreed by Millais School, West Sussex local education authority, at the time of its acquisition of specialist status, identifying those not yet achieved. [53455]
  802W
  Mr. Timms
  Millais School has been operating as a language college since September 1996. The information requested is being collated. I will therefore write to the hon. Member as soon as possible giving a full reply to the question raised.

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the(a) new requirements placed on and (b) requirements removed from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in the last year for which information is available. [53456]

  Mr. Timms
  New requirements placed on HM Chief Inspector of Schools during the financial year which ended on 31 March 2002 were as follows:to inspect and report at specified intervals on educational provision for students up to age 19 in further education colleges, education or training for 16 to 19-year-olds provided outside the further education sector which is wholly or partly funded by the Learning and Skills Council for England, the Connexions service, and training of teachers or lecturers of further education funded by the Learning and Skills Council for England or Higher Education Funding Council for England;
  to conduct area-wide inspections of education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds and report on them, taking account where appropriate of the views of the Chief Inspector for Adult Learning; with the Adult Learning Inspectorate, to agree and publish a Common Inspection Framework; to conduct inspections jointly with the Adult Learning Inspectorate where the education or training to be inspected falls within both inspectorates' remits;
  to keep the Secretary of State informed about quality, standards and management in the education and training brought within his remit by section 60 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 and, on request by the Secretary of State, to provide advice about that education and training or inspect and report on any education or training within his extended remit:
  to state whether he agrees with a registered inspector's judgment that a school has an inadequate sixth form;
  to regulate child minding and day care provision under the Children Act 1989, including registration of providers and securing the inspection of registered child minders and day care providers at specified intervals;
  to keep the Secretary of State informed about quality and standards of child minding and day care provision and provide advice about that provision as requested by the Secretary of State; and
  to include an account of the exercise of those functions transferred to him under the Care Standards Act 2000 in his annual report.

  During that period, HM Chief Inspector's responsibilities in respect of adult and community education provided by local education authorities were transferred to the Adult Learning Inspectorate.

  Sector Skills Councils
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what steps she is taking to ensure that delays in the establishment of sector skills councils do not result in the loss of key staff of national training organisations to the training sector; [53523]

  (2) when (a) the sector skills councils for the construction, engineering and hospitality sectors and (b) all sector skills councils will be fully operational. [53524]

  John Healey
  The ending of Government recognition of national training organisations (NTOs) and the licensing of sector skills councils are separate issues.
  803W
  Organisations formerly with NTO status are independent bodies led by employers, often with responsibilities wider than those which were required for NTO recognition. The continued funding and operation of these organisations is therefore a decision for the board of each body. New contracts have been awarded by my Department to 62 former NTOs from April 2002 for the delivery of specific essential work in support of occupational development. These contracts will conclude on 31 August 2002. The new Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA), working with other public agencies, will make arrangements for the delivery of essential work to support occupational development from September 2002.

  Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) represent a new deal with employers across the UK to improve skills and productivity performance in significant industry and business sectors. SSCs provide the opportunity for collective action by employers, in partnership and with the support of Government, to identify sector skills priorities and lead action to meet them. There is no timetable for introducing the new network as the decision to form a SSC rests with employers. Where employers want to form a SSC, and can meet the published SSC standard for the award of a licence, my Department will supplement employers' investment by contributing up to £1 million each year to support the Council's core work.

  Employers in the construction, engineering and hospitality sectors have yet to make a formal expression of interest to the SSDA about forming a SSC for their sectors. Informal discussions have been taking place and formal expressions of interest from these sectors are expected in the next few weeks when invited by the SSDA.

  Barcelona European Council
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what resources have been allocated to implement the conclusions for education made by the Barcelona European Council in March; and what timetable has been set for the implementation of the Council's proposals for(a) ensuring transparency of diplomas and qualifications, (b) the teaching of at least two foreign languages from a very early age, (c) the establishment of internet twinning with partner schools in Europe and (d) the promotion of the European dimension in education. [53525]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Work is already underway to take forward the Barcelona conclusions on education:

  (a) The UK higher education sector is taking forward work on credit transfer and progress files to ensure transparency of diplomas and other qualifications. This is part of the Bologna process, which aims to build a new European higher education area by 2010. The UK National Academic Recognition Information Centre, part of a European-wide network, exists to offer clear advice on mutual recognition and comparability of all higher education awards.

  EU member states are also working together on a broad strategy to make vocational qualifications better understood across Europe. The strategy includes work on certificate supplements and developing a common format for CVs for mobile workers to use if they wish to. We
  804W
  are funding the National Reference Point on Vocational Qualifications in Cheltenham to pilot work this year and next to test the Certificate Supplement approach.

  (b) We support the aspiration to improve opportunities for language learning. Currently we are developing a national language strategy that will identify what we need to deliver and how we will deliver it, taking account of resources available and our existing policy commitments. The strategy will be published in the autumn. Currently language learning is a requirement for all 11–16 year olds. Our ambition is that all primary school children will be entitled to study languages by 2012.

  (c) The European Commission is undertaking a feasibility study to identify options for helping secondary schools to establish or enhance an internet twinning link. The Commission will report to the Seville Council in June, and we expect decisions about implementation to be taken by the Council in the light of the options identified.

  (d) Pupils in England are already taught about Europe and the European Union at secondary school. They are taught about the history of Britain in its European and wider context within National Curriculum History. They will learn about the world as a global community, the role of the European Union and the UK's relations in Europe, including the European Union in National Curriculum Citizenship as a statutory National Curriculum subject in secondary schools this September. We have spent just over £1 million to date to support the production of resource materials for teaching citizenship and we will spend about £500,000 in 2002–03.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her Department's publication of figures relating to teacher vacancies, how many vacancies there are at Key Stages(a) one and two and (b) three and four. [53665]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: The information is not available in the form requested. In January 2002 there were 1,700 vacant teacher posts in maintained primary schools and 2,440 vacant teacher posts in maintained secondary schools in England. These figures are provisional.

  The vacancies recorded had been advertised and were for full-time permanent appointments or full-time appointments of at least one term's duration, which existed at the survey date and which the local education authority or school concerned intended to or had unsuccessfully attempted to fill.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers left the profession in each of the last five years, broken down by the reason given for leaving. [53667]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: The numbers of teachers leaving regular full or part time service in the maintained schools sector in England were as follows. The latest provisional data available are for 31 March 2000.
  805W

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Age retirement

  1,900

  1,700

  1,900

  1,900

  2,300

  Ill health retirement

  4,600

  4,800

  3.400

  2,300

  2,300

  Premature retirement

  8,600

  10,300

  11,200

  3,800

  4,300

  Other leavers

  20,300

  18,800

  22,500

  23,600

  26,100

  Total

  35,400

  35,600

  39.000

  31,600

  34,900

  Many of the teachers leaving the profession in these years will come back into service.

  Some 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of part-timers are not recorded on the Teachers' Pension Scheme, from which the data are obtained.

  Teaching Pay Initiative
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if funding for the teaching pay initiative will continue beyond 2003–04. [54153]

  Margaret Hodge
  TPI is an important initiative designed to help modernise FE Pay arrangements and recruit and reward teachers as part of the drive to improve teaching and learning. I recognise that it is an ongoing commitment for colleges and funding will continue beyond 2003–04. Many colleges have felt able to consolidate TPI payments and I hope others will follow suit.

  Young People's Services
  Phil Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the Government promotes innovation in services for young people. [46326]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  Promoting innovation is a key element of the Government's agenda for the modernisation of public services. Through partnerships between the statutory, voluntary and community sectors in initiatives such as the Children's Fund, Sure Start, Early Years and Childcare Partnerships and Quality Protects we are bringing new experience and innovative thinking to the delivery of services for children and young people and we are committed to mainstreaming these approaches.

  Central to this approach is listening to the views of young people and involving them in service design, implementation and evaluation. The Government's core principles for the involvement of children and young people, published by the Children and Young People's Unit, will help ensure that the contribution of young people continues to bring new thinking and innovation into services designed to meet their needs.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions how many children under 16 are living in bed and breakfast accommodation; what steps are being taken to reduce the 806W
  numbers of children living in bed and breakfast accommodation; and what steps he has taken to increase the supply of affordable accommodation. [53036]

  Mr. Byers
  Information relating to the number of children aged under 16 living in bed and breakfast is not collected centrally. However we estimate that there are 6,500 homeless households with children living in B&B accommodation.

  I recently announced a £35 million programme to reduce the number of homeless families with children in B&B hotels. Changes have also been made to housing benefit subsidy arrangements, worth an estimated £10 million, to encourage authorities to place homeless households in self-contained temporary accommodation. The Bed and Breakfast Unit is working with authorities with high levels of B&B use to produce individual action plans to ensure that, by March 2004, homeless families with children are placed in B&B hotels only in emergencies, and even then for a maximum of 6 weeks.

  My Department has significantly increased funding for new affordable housing. Investment through the Housing Corporation will rise to over £1.2 billion by 2003–04, almost double 2000–01 levels. This will help deliver our target of 100,000 new affordable homes by 2004, and we will ensure these funds are distributed more in line with local and regional priorities so that investment matches local needs.

  We are also providing £250 million through the Starter Home Initiative to help some 10,000 key workers in high demand areas to purchase a home.

  In addition, the Affordable Housing Unit is working closely with partners and stakeholders to increase delivery of affordable housing in high demand areas across the country over the next three years and to contribute to longer term thinking on the development of new housing capacity.

  Planning
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on the number of times an applicant can delay consideration of a planning appeal. [53509]

  Ms Keeble
  It is our policy that all parties to an appeal should be discouraged from delaying its consideration. On 1 August 2000 revised statutory procedures were introduced to speed up the handling of planning appeals by inquiry, hearing, and written representations and enforce the stricter deadlines in the procedures. Where an inquiry is to be held the Planning Inspectorate's aim, in every case, is to fix as early an inquiry date as possible. Each principal party to an appeal is only permitted one refusal of a date offered for the inquiry before a date, time and place for the inquiry is fixed.

  Right to Buy
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 22 April 2002,Official Report, column 46W, on right to buy, who has been commissioned to undertake the research projects into the right to buy scheme; what the terms of reference are of each project; and when work on each will be completed. [53018]

  Ms Keeble
  The information is as follows:(i) the impact of the February 1999 changes to limits on right to buy discounts:
  undertaken by a team from the universities of Bristol and Birmingham:
  to examine the effect of the reduction (from £50,000 to £22,000-£38,000 varying by region) in the maximum cash limit on the RTB discount that came into force in February 1999 and to estimate the likely effects of further changes in the RTB discount:
  expected completion date: July 2002.
  (ii) exploitation of the right to buy scheme by companies:
  undertaken by Heriot-Watt university:
  to examine the scale, nature and impact of the misuse of the right to buy policy by companies:
  expected completion date: November 2002.
  (iii) a review of the system for valuing properties for right to buy purposes:
  undertaken by College of Estate Management:
  to examine the variation in valuations of RTB properties by local authorities and by the Valuation Office Agency, identifying the criteria and procedures used and the appeals process and attempt to explain any variances between valuations of the same properties:
  expected completion date: June 2003.

  Construction Industry
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost will be to small businesses within the construction industry of complying with self-certification schemes following the introduction of the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2002. [53003]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The four new schemes recognised in the regulations are voluntary, and offer small businesses the opportunity, should they wish to take it up, to save money through not having to go through local authority building control. This is particularly important in relation to replacement glazing where as a result of changes we made to Part L of the regulations—that part dealing with the conservation of fuel and power, it became controlled fitting and subject to building control.

  The Fenestration Self Assessment Scheme (FENSA) was introduced to ease the burden of this change. We estimate that the typical cost of going through local authority building control for replacement glazing would be about £120 for a contract with a value of less than £2.000. Overall we have estimated the cost of not introducing self-certification to be £106,400,000 in the first year, and the overall financial benefit to be £104,685,000.

  Replacement Windows
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in relation 808W
  to statutory instrument No. 440, regulation 16A, what assessment he has made of the direct cost to individual house owners when they install replacement windows; what consultation has taken place over the introduction of this regulation; what requirements there will be to demonstrate compliance on the sale of a house; how home owners will be able to prove that windows were installed before commencement of the instrument on 1 April; what steps he will take to publicise these regulations widely; and whether notices will be sent to relevant (a) retailers, (b) builders and (c) merchants. [53250]

  Dr. Whitehead
  From the figures in the regulatory impact analysis we undertook prior to making statutory instrument No. 440, we estimate that the average saving per window installation contract would be around £117 compared to using local authority building control. In relation to consultation I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Tuesday 23 April 2002, to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas),Official Report, columns 179W-80W.

  There will be no requirement to demonstrate compliance with these regulations prior to the sale of a house. However, prior to the sale of a property, a search may reveal that the installation of a window has taken place without either the issue of a certificate from a person registered with the Fenestration Self-Assessment Scheme (FENSA), or evidence of a building notice given to a local authority. This though is highly unlikely to prevent the sale of a house, although in some circumstances it could delay the process. Householders would be advised in any event to keep receipts and other such records necessary to ensure a smooth transition during the sale of any property. In relation to publicity, I am pleased with the level of public awareness in relation to the changes so far. However, I will keep the situation under review and if there is evidence that more publicity is required, we shall provide it. I do not, at this stage, see any need for direct mailing of merchants, builders or retailers.

  Millennium Dome
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what stage negotiations have reached with Meridian Delta on the sale of the Millennium Dome; when negotiations will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [52614]

  Ms Keeble
  The negotiations with Meridian Delta Ltd are on course to reach a conclusion in May.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to require local planning authorities to inform(a) his Department and (b) the DCMS monitoring group on playing field sales of the outcome of all applications to build on playing fields. [51918]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: All local planning authority decisions are currently placed on the planning register and are open to public inspection. The Minister for Sport and I propose to invite Sport England to conduct a periodic survey of the outcome of those planning applications for development affecting playing fields to establish the outcome in those cases where Sport England has objected to the planning application.

  Low Demand Housing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which wards of the city of Newcastle upon Tyne are included in the pathfinders study of housing in low demand. [52126]

  Ms Keeble
  The proposed intervention area for the Tyneside pathfinder project has not yet been confirmed but is being discussed with the local authorities concerned. I would also expect the local authorities concerned to consult the relevant Members of this House.

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much residual debt has been written off in each of the local authorities where housing stock transfers have taken place. [53526]

  Ms Keeble
  The overhanging debt payments made to date are £21 million in respect of Burnley borough council, £78.9 million in respect of Blackburn with Darwen borough council, £64.59 million in respect of Calderdale metropolitan borough council and £111.68 million in respect of Coventry city council.

  Local Council Elections
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to lay regulations enabling local authorities to switch to alternative year elections where they have reduced the number of councillors representing wards from three to two. [53266]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: In the White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services" the Government said that they would invite the

  Total external support, 2002–03

  £ million

  Waverley Area

  Bracknell Forest UA area

  Waverley

  Surrey County Council

  Surrey Police Authority1

  Bracknell Forest Unitary Authority

  Thames Valley Police Authority2

  Revenue support grant

  0.579

  143.921

  1.525

  22.784

  24.425

  Redistributed non-domestic rates

  4.866

  287.019

  26.916

  34.180

  52.997

  Ring-fenced grants inside AEF3

  0.174

  102.080

  5.257

  9.139

  n/a

  Police grant

  0

  0

  54.443

  0

  122.387

  Total revenue support

  5.619

  533.020

  88.141

  66.103

  n/a

  Basic credit approvals

  0

  35.604

  0

  0.116

  0

  Supplementary credit approvals

  0

  11.614

  n/a

  11.614

  3.152

  Grants from central Government

  0.299

  9.479

  n/a

  2.522

  0

  National lottery

  0

  0

  n/a

  0.071

  0

  Total capital support

  0.299

  56.697

  n/a

  14.323

  3.152

  Total external support

  5.918

  589.717

  n/a

  80.426

  n/a

  n/a = not available

  1 Surrey Police Authority have not yet returned their capital estimates return form.

  2 Thames Valley Police Authority have not yet returned their general fund revenue account form.

  3 Aggregate external finance (AEF) is central Government support towards total standard spending. It comprises revenue support grant, redistributed non-domestic rates, and certain ring-fenced grants.

  Sources:

  2002–03 General Fund Revenue Account and Capital Estimates returns

  Local Government Finance Final Settlement
  810W
  Electoral Commission to propose options to simplify the current cycle of local elections. Meanwhile, we will, before the summer recess make regulations under Part IV of the Local Government Act 2000 to introduce elections by halves in a number of authorities that following periodic electoral reviews have two-member wards, and have requested such a change.

  Local Government Finance
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he will take to ensure that the new finance system for local authorities provides an effective framework within which councils can initiate new and innovative ways of delivering customer-focused services and lead their communities. [53639]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our comprehensive agenda for reform of the local government finance system was set out in last December's White Paper "Strong Local leadership—Quality Public Services". Our finance reforms will give councils more space to innovate and respond in ways that are appropriate to local circumstances by providing local authorities with greater freedom to borrow, invest, trade, charge and set spending priorities. Our White Paper implementation plan is available on the DTLR website at http://www.dtlr.gov.uk/local-regions/sll/implement/plan/ index.htm.

  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what total external support is received in 2002–03 by(a) local authorities covering the Waverley area and (b) the unitary authority of Bracknell. [53519]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities have reported the following information.

  Disability Facilities
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the reports he receives from local councils on the use of the financial support which he gives for disability facilities grants. [53313]

  Ms Keeble
  Local authorities provide returns to the Department on their total annual expenditure on Disabled Facilities Grant. The Department pays a grant to each local authority to cover 60 per cent. of their expenditure. Figures showing the Government's grant allocations and local authorities' expenditure over the last five years were placed in the Libraries of the House in January.

  Local authorities do not provide detailed information to the Department on the type of housing adaptations supported by the programme but as part of the annual Housing Investment Programme Review, Government offices for the regions will review local authorities' performance in managing the DFG programme.

  Electronic Voting
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by what means, when voting electronically, a voter can ascertain whether his vote has been recorded and counted. [52928]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The arrangements being piloted for electronic voting provide for voters to receive electronic confirmatory messages when their votes have been successfully received.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when he will notify applicants for electronic votes in the May elections whether their proposals have been authorised: [52927]

  (2) in which areas he is considering applications for electronic voting in May; [52925]

  (3) what the latest date is by which he will consider applications for electronic voting in May. [52926]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In October 2001, local authorities were invited to apply by 31 December to run electoral pilots in the May 2002 local elections. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced on 5 February 2002,Official Report, columns 829–31W, those authorities whose pilots had been approved. On 13 February 2002, Official Report, column 402W, he announced the approval of one further authority.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what arrangements will be in place to prevent personation of persons voting electronically. [52929]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Within the electronic voting pilots there are a range of measures in place to guard against impersonation. This will include the use of voter specific PIN numbers and passwords and real time electronic registers to cast and record votes. The systems will also prevent an electronic vote being cast where the PIN number and password have been used previously.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the cost to(a) county councils, (b) district councils and (c) borough councils of the 1 per cent. increase in employers' national insurance contributions. [52359]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Andrew Turner) on Monday 29 April 2002, Official Report, column 544W.

  Disabled Access
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what adjustments have been made to his Department's premises following the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and what the cost of these adjustments was as a proportion of the Department's budget. [53029]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: Records of expenditure relating to adjustments made to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) are not, as a matter of course, held separately across the DTLR estate. In some instances DDA related adjustments have been carried out by landlords, and in others as part of on-going maintenance works.

  In the DTLR headquarter buildings £217,000 (excluding VAT) has been spent on improvements following a review by specialist advisers on accessibility.

  As a comprehensive record of DDA related expenditure is not available, it is not possible to express this as a percentage of DTLR's budget.

  Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many net additional staff his Department has recruited in each month since June 2001 at(a) executive officer level and (b) administrative level. [52433]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The following table provides the figures requested.

  Administrative level

  Executive officer level

  Type of staff

  FTE

  Headcount

  FTE

  Headcount

  June 2001

  Casual

  6.68

  7.00

  —

  —

  Permanent

  -1.65

  -1.00

  4.00

  4.00

  Total

  5.03

  6.00

  4.00

  4.00

  July 2001

  Casual

  6.00

  6.00

  1.00

  1.00

  Permanent

  16.00

  16.00

  —

  —

  Total

  22.00

  22.00

  1.00

  1.00

  August 2001

  Casual

  -4.00

  -4.00

  —

  —

  Permanent

  4.65

  4.00

  5.00

  5.00

  Total

  0.65

  —

  5.00

  5.00

  813W

  Administrative level

  Executive officer level

  Type of staff

  FTE

  Headcount

  FTE

  Headcount

  September 2001

  Casual

  3.00

  3.00

  1.00

  1.00

  Permanent

  7.35

  8.00

  -2.00

  -2.00

  Total

  10.35

  11.00

  -1.00

  -1.00

  October 2001

  Casual

  -2.00

  -2.00

  2.00

  2.00

  Permanent

  5.00

  5.00

  3.00

  3.00

  Total

  3.00

  3.00

  5.00

  5.00

  November 2001

  Casual

  6.00

  6.00

  -2.00

  -2.00

  Permanent

  8.00

  8.00

  -2.25

  -2.00

  Total

  14.00

  14.00

  -4.25

  -4.00

  December 2001

  Casual

  —

  —

  1.00

  1.00

  Permanent

  2.00

  2.00

  7.00

  7.00

  Total

  2.00

  2.00

  8.00

  8.00

  January 2002

  Casual

  5.00

  5.00

  1.00

  1.00

  Permanent

  1.00

  1.00

  12.00

  12.00

  Total

  6.00

  6.00

  13.00

  13.00

  February 2002

  Casual

  -2.00

  -2.00

  —

  —

  Permanent

  3.00

  3.00

  3.78

  4.00

  Total

  1.00

  1.00

  3.78

  4.00

  March 2002

  Casual

  -2.41

  -3.00

  —

  —

  Permanent

  6.00

  6.00

  18.00

  18.00

  Total

  3.59

  3.00

  18.00

  18.00

  April 2002

  Casual

  3.00

  3.00

  1.00

  1.00

  Permanent

  19.73

  20.00

  22.54

  23.00

  Total

  22.73

  23.00

  23.54

  24.00

  Complaints
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many complaints were registered against his Department and its predecessor Departments in(a) 1990 to 1996 and (b) 1997 to 2002; how many are current; and what proportion were (i) taken up and (ii) upheld by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in those periods. [51223]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: Complaints and suggestions may be received at many different points in the organisation and it is the Department's policy to address these as near to the point of delivery and as soon as possible. Central records are not kept of the number of complaints.
  814W
  Figures relating to PCA investigations against the Department (including its predecessor Departments) between 1990 and 2002 are set out in the table:

  1990 to 1996

  1997 to 2002

  Complaints taken up by PCA

  108

  71

  Complaints upheld by PCA

  63

  31

  Outstanding cases

  0

  8

  Public Transport Workers (Assaults)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action the Government have take since 1997 to protect(a) bus workers and (b) other public transport staff from assaults at work. [53641]

  Ms Keeble
  Since 1997 the Department has produced a number of good practice guidance documents for transport operators on what actions they can take to protect their staff from assaults at work. The guidance covers the training of staff, the recording and monitoring of incidents, and management practices which could help staff who have been assaulted. For example, earlier this month we published guidance and a good practice case studies report on improving personal security in bus travel for passengers and staff.

  The Health and Safety Commission has agreed a three year programme of work (2000–03) to help employers from all sectors tackle the increasing problem of work-related violence. The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for taking the programme forward.

  More generally, the Government are taking action to reduce all violent crime through a number of measures, based on a concerted strategy of targeted policing, effective punishment and interventions to address the underlying conditions which breed violence.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to ban members of the public from using public transport if they assault staff. [53643]

  Ms Keeble
  Powers are already available to individual transport operators and the criminal justice system to ban those convicted of violence while using public transport systems from using public transport.

  Channel Tunnel
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that rail freight facilities through the channel tunnel return to the pre-November 2001 levels. [53437]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport to the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on 18 April 2002,Official Report, column 1170W.

  Track Safety Certificates
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 24 April, ref. 52041, about Railtrack's random checks of personal track safety certificates, what
  815W
  action is taken (a) by Railtrack and (b) by railway employers in the 2 per cent. of cases where staff do not hold a valid certificate; and what action is being taken to reduce the percentage of staff without a valid certificate. [53251]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack advise that they carry out a series of comprehensive spot checks every three months and supplement this with additional random spot checks. Railtrack log all the information they receive and use it to monitor the provision of staff by agencies and contractors. If anyone does not hold the correct accreditation they are removed immediately from site.

  Croxley Rail Link
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the proposals for the Croxley Rail Link. [52521]

  Ms Keeble
  I am pleased that this proposal has satisfied the economic appraisal set by the Department. The issues yet to be resolved are to do with its deliverability. My officials are expecting a paper on these issues from Hertfordshire county council's consultants shortly. We recognise the importance of the Croxley Rail Link and look forward to making progress on this scheme.

  Railways
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions the Government have had with(a) Connex South Eastern and (b) other rail operators to discuss the extension of services during the night. [53645]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Any such proposal would be a matter for the train operating companies to take forward with the Strategic Rail Authority.

  Deep-sea Port Traffic
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the level of deep-sea port traffic expressed in containers per annum has been in each of the last 10 years. [51182]

  Mr. Byers
  Information on the numbers of containers entering or leaving the UK that were transported from or to deep-sea ports (excluding Europe and the Mediterranean) in each of the last 10 years to 2000 is published in "Maritime Statistics" annual reports for the years 1991 to 2000 inclusive, which are produced by my Department. Copies of these reports are held in the Libraries of the House.

  Roads (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what additional resources he will make available to Gloucestershire county council to maintain the A40 following de-trunking; and if he will make a statement. [52934]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.
  816W
  Letter from Tim Matthews to Nigel Jones dated 1 May 2002:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about future funding of the A40 in Gloucestershire.
  We are discussing with the County Council the additional resources to be transferred to them to maintain the A40 following its detrunking. The basis for those discussions is the methodology, agreed between the Local Government Association and DTLR, for transferring routine maintenance resources to local authorities.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he proposes to make regulations under the Transport Act 2000 to amend the transfers of liability to vehicle hirers for fixed penalty charge notices for bus lane contraventions under the London Local Authorities Act 1996. [52973]

  Ms Keeble
  Our target is to make London bus lane enforcement regulations under section 144 of the Transport Act 2000 this autumn.

  Night Buses
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals the Government have to increase the number of night buses and night bus routes. [53644]

  Ms Keeble
  Whether to provide night bus services is primarily a matter for commercial operators outside London, and for Transport for London. Local authorities outside London may however subsidise the provision of a service where they consider it necessary. There are already night bus services operating in a number of towns and cities.

  Bus services in London are the responsibility of the Mayor and Transport for London. They have already made significant improvements in night bus services and more are planned. For example, 16 new night bus routes have been introduced since April 2000, and frequencies have increased on many others. There has also been a 20 per cent. growth in the number of night bus passengers in London in the last year.

  As a devolved matter under the Scotland Act 1998, bus services in Scotland are primarily a matter for the Scottish Executive. I understand that the frequency of night bus services in Glasgow will be increased from 26 May.

  Vehicle Registration
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 29 April 2002, ref. 53199, on processing by the DVLA, what the average time taken was to process replacement vehicle registration documents in the last 12 months. [54057]

  Mr. Jamieson
  For the year 2001–02 in respect of registration documents issued in response to customers notifying changes to their own or the vehicle's details, the agency processed 95 per cent. of all transactions within 8.4 days.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many NDPBs have ceased to exist since 1997. [52501]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Records of the numbers of public bodies which are created and which cease to exist each year are not currently collected centrally. However, the total number of public bodies in existence each year is published in Annex B of the Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies 2001", a copy of which is held in the Library, and which is available on the internet.

  In 1979, the first year in which the total number of public bodies was recorded, there were 2,167 public bodies. In 1997, this had decreased by 48 per cent. to 1,128. The total as at 31 March 2001 was 1,025 a further reduction of 9 per cent. In parallel with the continuing commitment to reduce the number of NDPBs, the Government also remain committed to ensuring that new NDPBs and other bodies are set up only where it can be demonstrated that this is the most cost-effective and appropriate means of carrying out the function concerned.

  "Public Bodies 2002", giving details of public bodies in existence as at 31 March 2002, will be published in due course.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the Afghans who landed at Stansted in February 2000 in a hijacked aircraft are in Britain; and what their immigration status is. [52922]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: Of the 170 people who arrived on the aircraft, 81, including the flight crew, returned to Afghanistan. Thirteen of the passengers, together with their 21 dependants, have asylum applications that are still undecided. This group includes the convicted hijackers. Thirty passengers with five dependants were refused asylum but remain in the United Kingdom pending the outcome of their appeal to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. Six passengers and 12 dependants have been granted refugee status. Two passengers who previously indicated that they wished to return to Afghanistan have now indicated that they no longer wish to do so and their status is under consideration.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many dependants joined applicants for asylum after an initial decision on their case and are not included in the published total of asylum seekers in each of the years from 1995 to 2001; [52762]

  (2) how many dependants are identified in the administrative records as joining asylum seekers after the initial decision on their cases in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [52761]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: I regret that the information requested is unavailable and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  818W
  Administrative records for applicants for asylum do not necessarily record how many dependants join applicants following initial decisions for a number of reasons. Some applicants leave the United Kingdom following the initial decision and are subsequently joined by dependants outside the United Kingdom, who would not be included in the published total. Some dependants may apply for asylum as principal applicants and therefore not be identifiable as dependants of existing or former applicants, but would be included in the published total. Some dependants may apply to enter the United Kingdom for temporary purposes (for example, as a visitor) or apply for settlement within the United Kingdom without either identifying that they wish to join a former or current asylum applicant or applying for asylum. These dependants would not be included in the published total of asylum seekers.

  Information on asylum applications and initial decisions is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are taken to ensure that those who are refused asylum and who agree to depart voluntarily do so. [52764]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: A voluntary departure is where an asylum seekers withdraws their asylum claim before all appeal rights have been exhausted and wishes to leave the United Kingdom. In all cases they are asked to sign a disclaimer confirming that they wish to leave prior to the conclusion of their application.

  Some individuals make themselves known to the immigration service at the point of embarkation, for example, in order to collect ticketing and other documentation. The immigration service will conform with the carrier that individuals have departed from the United Kingdom.

  If an individual does not inform the immigration service of his intentions and obtains his/her own documents, we may not be aware that he/she has departed from the United Kingdom.

  Where a person is voluntarily leaving the United Kingdom under the Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme (VARP), operated on behalf of the Home Office by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), they will be assisted at the airport by the IOM. Before the flight leaves, the individual is required to sign a disclaimer confirming that the departure is voluntary. The IOM's London office advises IOM offices in the destination country and any transit country of the departure and notifies the Home Office.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applicants have been dealt with under the backlog clearing exercise; and how many of them were granted(a) asylum and (b) exceptional leave to remain. [52766]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: Record levels of initial decisions in 2000 and 2001 led to a reduction in the number of cases awaiting an initial decision—from 119,700 cases at the end of December

  819W
  1999 to 39,400 at the end of December 2001. Initial decisions continue to outstrip applications, so the number of outstanding cases continues to fall.

  The data requested are shown in the table. This information relates to cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre-1996 asylum application backlog during 1999 and 2000.

  Asylum cases considered under the backlog clearance exercise 1.2 Principal applicants only

  1999

  20003

  Total

  Total cases

  12,415

  11,660

  24,075

  Granted asylum under backlog criteria

  945

  305

  1,250

  Granted ELR under backlog criteria

  10,195

  10,020

  20,215

  Refused under backlog criteria4

  1,275

  1,335

  2,605

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest 5, and exclude dependents.

  2 Some cases decided under the backlog criteria may not be included, as they may be included in the figures showing cases considered under normal procedures.

  3 Provisional data

  4 Includes some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  Information on initial decisions is published quarterly. The next publication will cover the period up to March 2002, and will be available from 30 May 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ immigration1.html.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Government Departments provided support for asylum seekers in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [52768]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: In 1999–2000 support for asylum seekers was provided by the Department for Social Security (now Department for Work and Pensions), the Department of Health and the Home Office. The Department of Social Security (DSS) provided support to those asylum seekers who made their application for asylum at a port of entry until such time as an initial decision was made on the claim. But the costs of support provided by the DSS were met by the Home Office. The Department of Health was responsible for funding the support costs of unaccompanied asylum seeking children. The Home Office was responsible for payment of grant to local authorities who were supporting asylum seekers who had either applied for asylum in country or who, having applied at a United Kingdom port of entry, had received an initial negative decision on their claim and were appealing against that decision.

  In 2000–01 support for asylum seekers was mainly provided by the Home Office. Support was provided either directly by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) or by grant paid to local authorities to meet the direct costs of those supported under the interim provisions. In 2000–01 the grant to social services departments caring for unaccompanied asylum seeking children was also met by the Home Office. The DSS provided support for those asylum seekers who applied for asylum at a port of entry prior to 3 April 2000 and who had not received an initial decision on their claim. Again these costs were met by the Home Office.
  820W
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applicants were(a) finally refused and (b) removed in (i) 1999-2–000 and (ii) 2000–01. [52769]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: Information on final decisions is not readily available and could be obtained only by examining individual case files to obtain information on the outcomes of initial decisions, of subsequent appeals to the Immigration Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, and of cases which have been reconsidered, which would incur disproportionate cost.

  Information on initial decisions which refused asylum and Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR) during these years is shown in the table. This table represents principal applicants only.

  Initial decisions to refuse asylum and ELR, 1999–2000 and 2000–011,2

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total initial decisions

  52,040

  132,840

  Refused asylum and ELR under normal procedures3

  23,720

  97,040

  Refused asylum and ELR under backlog criteria4.5

  1,490

  1,110

  1 Data are rounded to the nearest 5 and exclude dependants.

  2 Provisional data.

  4 Cases considered under normal procedures may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

  4 Cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre-1996 asylum application backlog.

  5 Includes some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  The number of failed asylum applicants removed in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 is shown in the table. This table represents principal applicants only.

  Asylum seekers1 removed2,3

  Year

  Number

  1999–2000

  7,915

  2000–01

  48,930

  1 Persons who had sought asylum at some point, excluding dependants.

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  3 Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them and persons leaving under the Assisted Voluntary Returns Programme run by the International Organisation for Migration.

  4 Provisional figure.

  Removals in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 do not necessarily relate to refusals in the same period.

  Information on initial decisions and the number of asylum seekers removed from the United Kingdom is published on a quarterly basis on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uldrds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of accommodating asylum seekers and those already granted asylum and exceptional leave to remain in the financial year 2000–01. [52770]
  821W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: Home Office expenditure on supporting destitute asylum seekers, including unaccompanied minors, in 2000–01 was £751 million.

  Those granted refugee status and exceptional leave to remain are entitled to work and to mainstream benefits and figures for the costs are not available.

  Arranged Marriages
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if an entry clearance officer who has grounds to suspect that a proposed marriage is primarily for the purpose of evading immigration controls has the power to refuse the issue of an entry clearance certificate to either party on those grounds. [52767]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: The primary purpose rule, which required an applicant to prove that the primary purpose of the marriage was not to obtain admission to the United Kingdom, was abolished in June 1997. However, an entry clearance officer can refuse to issue an entry clearance if he is not satisfied that the marriage is genuine and that each of the parties intends to live permanently with the other as his or her spouse after the marriage.

  Refugee Convention
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps would be necessary for Britain to withdraw from the 1951 Refugee Convention and from subsequent related commitments. [52763]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: Article 44 of the 1951 Convention states that any contracting state may denounce the Convention at any time by a notification addressed to the Secretary General of the United Nations. The Convention would cease to extend to such territory one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary General. All relevant legislation would need to be amended to give effect to denunciation of the Convention.

  However, the Government are committed to ensuring that this country adheres to its obligations under the Convention, and that those who are fleeing persecution are given the protection they need. Equally the Government are determined that those who attempt to abuse this country's immigration and asylum system are dealt with quickly and removed.

  Resource Allocation
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he will use the additional resources allocated to his Department in the Budget statement. [53947]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Working in partnership with colleagues in Departments, agencies and services throughout the criminal justice system, I am taking forward a major programme of work to reduce crime and deal more effectively with offenders at every stage of the criminal justice process. The recent additional allocation of resources will enable us both to intensify and accelerate existing plans in key areas as well as to enhance our counter-terrorist response.
  822W
  In his Budget statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the allocation of new resources to the Home Office of £180 million, including £110 million from the Reserve for 2002–03. He also announced that we would be drawing down on a further £100 million from the Criminal Justice Reserve. In addition, I will be re-prioritising £68 million from existing Home Office resources. This will make possible substantial new investment in key Home Office priorities as follows:
  £67 million to bring forward and intensify the Street Crime Initiative which is a targeted programme to reduce street robbery in the 10 metropolitan areas which together account for 82 per cent. of the national total. This comprises:

  £ million

  Police operations and community support officers

  36.0

  Video identity parades

  7.6

  Probation/resettlement and drugs

  10.0

  Additional Crown Prosecution Service and courts costs

  13.8

  £194 million for measures to deal with offenders on remand and after sentence and in particular provide effective measures to tackle persistent juvenile offending.

  £ million

  2,300 prison places (including 600 for juveniles)

  171.0

  Bail tagging for juveniles

  7.5

  Extending intensive supervision schemes

  6.5

  Local authority secure unit and secure training centre places

  9.0

  £87 million to enhance our defences against terrorism including additional resources for police activity and technical and operational support for counter-terrorist activity.

  £ million

  Police activity

  63.0

  Technical and operational support

  24.0

  Sentence Review
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to inform members of the public of their right to ask the Attorney-General to review unduly lenient sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 1998. [51991]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: Information about the power of the Attorney-General to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal for review has been incorporated in a number of Home Office publications, including the Victims Charter. This has been distributed widely throughout the criminal justice system and is publicly available through Libraries and on the Home Office website, and the 'Information for Families of Homicide Victims' pack.

  If a person believes that the sentence passed is unduly lenient, they can discuss this with the local office of the Crown Prosecution Service, who have put in place systems by which potentially unduly lenient sentences can be brought to the attention of the Attorney-General.

  Young Prisoners
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what minimum daily calorie level is recommended for juveniles held in prisons and courts. [52138]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Youth Justice Board monitors the performance of secure training centres (STCs) and local authority secure children's homes against their respective contracts and service specifications. These specify that each service provider should provide three wholesome, nutritious, varied good quality meals per day to each young person. At least one meal should be hot and there should be a choice available for the main meal.

  Prison Service establishments holding juveniles are subject to Prison Service Order 5000, Annexe 20, which states that the estimated average calorific requirement for the 15 to 18-year-old age group is 2,755 kcal for males and 2,110 kcal for females.

  Number of antisocial behaviour orders issued as from 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2001 within Hampshire by area

  Area

  From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 20001

  From 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2000

  From 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  Total

  Police force area/MCC2

  Hampshire

  1

  2

  4

  7

  Local government authority

  Fareham BC

  3—

  —

  —

  —

  Gosport BC

  3—

  —

  —

  —

  Portsmouth, City of

  3—

  —

  1

  1

  Southampton, City of

  3—

  2

  3

  5

  1 Total figure only available for Hampshire police force area within this period. Local government authority not known.

  2 MCC—Magistrates courts committee area.

  3 Not available.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his target is for police forces to deal with applications for(a) new and for (b) variations of firearms certificates; and what the average time taken by each police force is. [53466]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: No central target is set by the Home Office. It is for each police force to establish its own targets for dealing with applications for new firearms certificates and for variations to existing ones. Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1999 all forces are required to carry out a five year rolling programme of best value reviews of all areas of business, including firearms licensing.

  The average times taken for each force to undertake these functions are not centrally recorded, but we understand that most forces would aim to deal with the majority of currently completed applications within four to eight weeks.

  Looked-after Children
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles in prisons are looked-after children. [52140]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) is responsible for commissioning and purchasing secure accommodation for juveniles, and for setting and monitoring standards.

  The information requested is not currently collected systematically. However, the YJB is now putting in place a system to do this. The YJB is also in the process of commissioning research into the numbers and needs of looked-after children in custody.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued since their inception in(a) Hampshire, (b) Fareham, (c) Gosport and (d) Portsmouth. [53434]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 April 2002]: Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) were introduced from 1 April 1999. The data given in the table covers the period up to the end of December 2001.

  Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts were let by his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to(a) PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst and Young, (c) Deloitte and Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen for consultancy services for the financial years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, indicating the remuneration in each case. [33851]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information on the number of contracts let by the Home Department to(a) Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), (b) Ernst and Young, (c) Deloitte and Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Anderson for consultancy services for the financial years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998-–99, (iii) 1999-–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001 to date indicating the remuneration made in each case is as follows:
  825W

  Company

  Numbers of contracts

  Remuneration

  1997–98

  Ernst and Young

  1

  10,665

  KPMG

  2

  100,774

  1998–99

  Ernst and Young

  1

  35,250

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  2

  37,440

  KPMG

  3

  226,955

  1999–2000

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  5

  2,728,372

  KPMG

  1

  25,000

  Ernst and Young

  2

  311,000

  Deloitte and Touche

  1

  130,000

  2000–01

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  4

  2,284,258

  Ernst and Young

  2

  1,166,913

  2001 to date

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  4

  2,489,251

  Deloitte and Touche

  1

  15,800

  Ernst and Young

  1

  429,000

  Notes:

  Contracts were awarded following civil service rules.

  The Home Office has not awarded any contracts to Anderson for the period in question

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff left the service of his 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 his Department and its agencies assumed responsibilities for making payments until retirement age. [37549]

  Angela Eagle
  I am sorry for the delay in answering this question. Information on the number of staff who have left, and where the Home Office and its agencies have assumed responsibility for the early departure costs is set out in the tables.

  Staff who left in the 12 month period before 31 March 2002

  Number of staff who left the Department:

  in the year ended 31 March 2001

  before the formal retirement age

  United Kingdom Passport Agencyd (UKPA)

  15

  14

  Forensic Science Service (FSS)

  173

  169

  Fire Service College (FSC)

  30

  29

  Main Home Office

  1,030

  986

  Prison Service

  3,685

  3,165

  Total

  4,933

  4,363

  Note:

  All methods of leaving the Department/agencies are included here.

  Number of staff where the Department has responsibility for early departure costs until retirement age

  Department/agency

  Number

  Home Office

  19

  Prison Service

  45

  United Kingdom Passport Service

  2

  Forensic Science Service

  2

  Fire Service College1

  1

  Total

  69

  826W
  1 Responsibility for Fire Service College transferred to Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) as part of the machinery of Government changes in June 2001.

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41071]

  Angela Eagle
  The estimated costs of hotel accommodation for staff working away from home are contained in the table:

  Year

  Cost £

  1998–99

  28,220

  1999–2000

  249,462

  2000–01

  504,815

  2001–021

  685,818

  1 To date

  Fully accurate information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The increase in expenditure is largely due to the expansion of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the activities carried out by the National Asylum Support Service which has necessitated increased travelling for staff and stays away from home. It had been anticipated and included in budgets. A programme of regional recruitment is under way to manage down the number of staff who are posted to areas that require hotel stays.

  Mr. Mustapha Sekhi
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to make a decision on the asylum application of Mr. Mustapha Sekhi, reference B1039408. [43209]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 14 March 2002]: My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Rooker wrote to the hon. Member on 9 April 2002.

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the criminal offences which have been(a) created in each year since 1997 and (b) abolished. [44995]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: A comprehensive and exhaustive list of new and abolished offences could be provided only at disproportionate cost. We can, however, provide the following information about Home Office measures which have been enacted since 1 May 1997.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created two new offences: breach of antisocial behaviour orders and breach of sex offender orders. It also created nine racially-aggravated offences (amended by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to "racially or religiously aggravated offences"), but these are based on existing offences and do not render unlawful behaviour which would otherwise have been lawful. The Data Protection Act 1998 created four new offences.
  827W
  The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 created 12 new offences. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 created four new offences. The Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 created one new offence.

  The Terrorism Act 2000 created 38 new offences. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 created four new criminal offences. The Football (Disorder) Act 2000 created two new criminal offences. The Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000 created one new criminal offence. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 created three new criminal offences.

  The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 created 69 new criminal offences. The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 created three new criminal offences. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 created two new criminal offences. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 created six new criminal offences.

  The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 created 15 new criminal offences. The Vehicle (Crimes) Act 2001 created 12 new criminal offences. The Private Security Industry Act 2001 created 10 new offences. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 created 19 new offences.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what class of offences bail is(a) automatically refused and (b) automatically allowed. [52943]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: There are no classes of offences for which bail is either automatically granted or refused. The Bail Act 1976 establishes a presumption in favour of bail and then sets out exceptions to this presumption, so that the defendant need not be granted bail where he or she presents a bail risk. For example, where there are substantial grounds for believing that if released on bail the defendant would fail to return to court, would commit an offence, interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. Each decision is at the discretion of the courts and each case is considered on its own merits.

  Jury Service
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the exemption of medical professionals from jury service; and what plans he has to alter this. [47867]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The issue was considered by Sir Robin Auld as part of his independent review of the criminal courts. He recommended that no one should be excusable from jury service as of right, only on showing good reason for excusal. The Government are giving careful consideration to all the representations received on Sir Robin's review and will be announcing its response in the forthcoming Criminal Justice White Paper.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what process there is to enable monitoring to take place concerning the speed and methods of transit of appeal bundle files from UK missions overseas to their initial destinations at the Appeals Support Service in this country; and what period of time it should take for an 828W
  appeal bundle to reach the Immigration Appellate Authority for consideration from the date of initial recording with the Appeals Support Service. [48862]

  Angela Eagle
  The target time for despatch of explanatory statements from entry clearance posts to the Home Office is one month from receipt of the notice of appeal for non-settlement applications and three months for settlement applications. Information on the actual time for despatch is not available.

  There is no target governing the period between the receipt of an appeal bundle in the Home Office and its receipt in the Immigration Appellate Authority.

  Leave to Remain Applications
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals have made applications this year for leave to remain in the UK; how long an application for leave to remain in the UK takes to be processed by the Home Office from the time of submission; what Department deals with overstayer applications; and if he will make a statement on special reasons that prevent a decision being made in order to complete a case within a period of six months from date of application. [48860]

  Angela Eagle
  Statistics on the number of applicants seeking an extension of leave to remain in the United Kingdom are not available.

  Our aim is to decide 65 per cent. of all straightforward applications on initial consideration within three weeks. Due to the exceptionally high number of applications received over the past year, and process changes which are being introduced to improve our longer term performance, it is at present taking up to six weeks to decide an application on initial consideration. We are working to reduce this to three weeks or less as soon as possible. For the same reasons some applications which need further inquiries or more detailed consideration can take up to nine months to consider. Every effort is being made to reduce this period. Information on expected processing times for general immigration cases is provided to applicants on the Immigration Nationality Directorate (IND) website at http://194.203.40.90/ default.asp?PageId=113

  A special unit within the Integrated Casework Directorate has been set up to consider applications made under the Regularisation of Overstayers Scheme.

  Prisons
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of(a) prisoners and (b) re-offending prisoners in UK prisons were excluded from school while of school age. [49971]

  Beverley Hughes
  A 1998 survey found that around half of all male prisoners and a third of female prisoners had been excluded from school. A more recent survey carried out in a sample of young offender institutions between September 2001 and February 2002 found that 84 per cent. of respondents have been excluded from school. Neither survey distinguishes between prisoners in custody for a first or repeat offence.

  Smart Card Technology
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of smart card technology in his Department and in the areas for which it is responsible; and what discussions he has had with private companies about the use of smart card technology within his Department. [50480]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: The Home Department has a number of areas of business where smart card technology may be relevantly applied. In their work on drafting a consultation paper on entitlement cards and other methods for dealing with identity fraud which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 5 February 2002, Official Report, column 872W, my officials have discussed the use of smart card technology with trade associations and some private companies as set out in my answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on 1 March 2002, Official Report, column 1587W.

  In the Passport Service and the Criminal Records Bureau smart card technology is not currently used, however, the Passport Service is currently investigating the potential use of electronic data storage in passport books and in a card form of the passport issued along side a passport book. The primary aim of this technology would be to improve document security by the addition of a machine readable biometrics templates. Smart card technology would be one option for data storage. Other options are optical memory, 2D bar codes and magnetic strip. The use of smart card (i.e. microcomputer chip) technology would be expensive but would also provide the opportunity to develop other applications, particularly if used on a passport card. These investigations have centred on technology standards and the experience of other Governments and organisations using electronic data storage for biometric templates. There have been no direct discussions about a smart card passport design with private sector companies supplying smart card technology.

  In the Immigration and Nationality Directorate smart card technology is being used in the context of the Asylum Fingerprinting System and has been developed by the incumbent supplier of services.

  In respect of internal operational business requirements smart card technology is part of proposals currently being made by incumbent Home Office Private Finance Initiative (PFI) suppliers to support security of mobile computing.

  Technology decisions in the context of PFI contracts would not involve the Department in direct discussions with smart card suppliers.

  The Home Office continues to liaise with the Office of the e-Envoy (OeE) on appropriate opportunities and uses of such technology and will respond to the proceedings and findings of the OeE Smart Card Working Group.

  Appeals
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the ASS of his Department forwarded the papers in the case of Fuzal-Ur-Rahman post ref ISB-/E425 to the IAA. [50702]
  830W
  Angela Eagle
  There is no target governing the period between the receipt of an appeal bundle in the Home Office and its receipt in the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA).

  Our records indicate that the appeal papers have been processed and the bundle has been dispatched to the IAA. The IAA will advise the appellant of the date for the hearing in due course.

  Child Safety/Parenting Orders
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) child safety and (b) parenting orders have been made to date in each police force area in England and Wales; how many have been (i) discharged and (ii) breached; and if he will make a statement. [51829]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of parenting orders and child safety orders imposed in England and Wales between April 2000 and December 2001, are set out in the table. This information comes from the Youth Justice Board. I will write to the hon. Member with police force area breakdowns as soon as they are available. 40 of the parenting orders imposed following a crime by the child have resulted in breach action. Discharge and other breach statistics are not routinely collected.

  England and Wales

  Parenting order

  Child safety order

  Crime

  1,268

  —

  Education

  274

  —

  Other

  236

  —

  Total

  1,778

  12

  Cyclists (Fixed Penalties)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many substantive fixed penalties were issued against cyclists in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001, by police force, broken down by the reasons of issue. [51806]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 24 April 2002]: Available information for the year 2000, taken from a special exercise undertaken to monitor fixed penalties issued against pedal cyclists, are given in the table.

  The exercise has not been repeated for 2001.

  Fixed Penalties—Number of substantive tickets issued for pedal cycle offences by offence and police force area, January to December 2000

  Police force area

  Carrying more than one person on pedal cycle

  Cycling on the footway (pavement)

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  34

  35

  Bedfordshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Cambridgeshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Cheshire

  1—

  14

  14

  Cleveland

  1

  5

  5

  Cumbria

  1—

  20

  20

  Derbyshire

  1—

  8

  8

  Devon and Cornwall

  6

  34

  40

  Dorset

  1—

  17

  17

  Durham

  1

  11

  12

  Essex

  4

  55

  59

  Gloucestershire

  2

  47

  49

  831W

  Fixed Penalties—Number of substantive tickets issued for pedal cycle offences by offence and police force area, January to December 2000

  Police force area

  Carrying more than one person on pedal cycle

  Cycling on the footway (pavement)

  Total

  Greater Manchester

  4

  278

  82

  Hampshire

  7

  52

  59

  Hertfordshire

  1—

  6

  6

  Humberside

  6

  64

  70

  Kent

  1

  44

  45

  Lancashire

  4

  20

  24

  Leicestershire

  1

  5

  6

  Lincolnshire

  1

  4

  5

  London, City of

  1—

  3

  3

  Merseyside

  1—

  20

  20

  Metropolitan Police

  1—

  66

  66

  Norfolk

  1—

  14

  14

  Northamptonshire

  1—

  7

  7

  Northumbria

  1

  27

  28

  North Yorkshire

  1

  16

  17

  Nottinghamshire

  1—

  1

  1

  South Yorkshire

  1—

  34

  34

  Staffordshire

  1

  4

  5

  Suffolk

  1—

  30

  30

  Surrey

  1

  1

  2

  Sussex

  1—

  9

  9

  Thames Valley

  2

  6

  8

  Warwickshire

  1

  3

  4

  West Mercia

  1—

  17

  17

  West Midlands

  3

  9

  12

  West Yorkshire

  1—

  2

  2

  Wiltshire

  1

  23

  24

  Dyfed-Powys

  1—

  3

  3

  Gwent

  1—

  1

  1

  North Wales3

  1—

  1

  1

  South Wales

  1

  6

  7

  Total

  51

  821

  872

  1 Not available

  2 Motoring offences of driving on footway (pavement) included within cycling on the footway (pavement).

  2 October to December 2000 only

  Raves
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the definition of raves under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to give police more powers to prevent and stop such events by(a) lowering the requisite number of attendees and (b) including events under cover. [52290]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We are currently considering the effectiveness of the current legislation (Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) on raves.

  Animal Experimentation
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the establishment of a Royal Commission into animal experimentation; and if he will make a statement. [51666]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) on 25 March 2002, Official Report, column 599W.

  Belmarsh Prison
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the procedure is for vetting visitors to remand prisoners held in the special secure unit 832W
  at HMP Belmarsh; what the target is for number of days required to process a prisoner application; how many applications have been processed since October 2001; how many applications are still pending; how many days each completed application took to process; and how many and what proportion of applications have been rejected. [52466]

  Beverley Hughes
  The facility at Belmarsh is designated as a High Secure Unit. Any person wishing to have an open visit with a category A prisoner, irrespective of whether that prisoner (convicted or on remand) is located in the Unit or elsewhere at Belmarsh, is required to submit to the prison an application form and two passport sized photographs of themselves. A security check is then undertaken, generally by the relevant police authority. Once those checks are complete, a decision on whether to allow the applicant to have open visits is then made.

  The 33 prisoners currently located in the High Secure Unit have made a total of 196 applications for visitors to be made 'approved visitors' and receive open visits. Of this number 72 visitors have been cleared for open visits, 16 are currently receiving discretionary closed visits and 108 are awaiting clearance.

  Applications from the prisoner for a person to become an approved visitor are normally processed within 24 hours of receipt by the issue of the appropriate form for the visitor to complete. Returned forms from the visitor are normally processed within 48 hours of receipt and passed to the relevant police authority. Upon completion of police checks, a final decision is then taken by the prison, normally within 48 hours. Time taken for visitors to return application forms and for the police to complete appropriate checks is beyond the control of the prison.

  Information on each separate application could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made for the maintenance of family relationships of(a) convicted and (b) remand prisoners held in the special secure unit at HMP Belmarsh; how many (i) hours for family visits and (ii) minutes for telephone contact each prisoner has been permitted in each of the last four weeks for which figures are available; and what restrictions were put on (A) the visit and the visitors and (B) the phone call and recipient of phone calls. [52465]

  Beverley Hughes
  The facility at Belmarsh is designated as a High Secure Unit (HSU). All prisoners in the unit can arrange visits as set out in the guidelines of Standing Order 5 and subject to those visitors being on the Approved Visitors Scheme. Convicted prisoners receive two visiting orders per month, plus a further visiting order should they be on the enhanced level of the incentive and earned privileges (IEP) scheme. Those prisoners held on remand receive two visiting orders per week, plus a further visiting order should they be on the enhanced level of the IEP Scheme.

  All visits are up to a maximum of two hours in length. During Monday to Friday visits are available either in the morning or afternoon. At weekends, visits are available in the afternoon only. For the present number of prisoners in

  833W
  the HSU there are available each week 48 sessions of two hours duration. That availability could be increased to 72 sessions per week in the event of extra demand.

  All prisoners in the HSU are able to use the telephone subject to the recipient of the call being an approved visitor or in the process of becoming an approved visitor.

  The computer managed telephone system allows for the duration of calls to be no more than 15 minutes. However, there is no limit to the number of calls any prisoner may make during the association period. Each prisoner may have a maximum amount of credit in his telephone account of £60 on which to spend on calls, except for those classed as foreign nationals, where no maximum limit exists.

  Telephone calls may be made in any association period or, on application, if the timing of association is not convenient for either the family or legal advisers. During the last week of March and the first three weeks of April 2002 approximately 42 hours of facility time during which to make use of the telephone system.

  Details of individual prisoner use of visits and the telephone can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what education and training facilities are available for(a) remand and (b) convicted prisoners held in the special secure unit at HMP Belmarsh; how many hours in each of the last four weeks for which figures are available each prisoner has been able to use these facilities; and what was the average hours per day for which figures are available in the last month that prisoners were locked in their cells. [52464]

  Beverley Hughes
  The facility at Belmarsh is designated as a High Secure Unit. All prisoners (whether on remand or convicted) may apply to the education department for assistance and advice on educational matters. Work is undertaken on a self study basis, although there are no vocational training courses. A basic skills analysis has also been undertaken to identify the individual needs of prisoners which also took into account the fact that a number were foreign nationals. Prisoners have access to computer facilities, which may be used whenever they are unlocked and on association.

  The regime of the unit varies daily, but the average number of hours a prisoner may be locked up in any period of 24 hours is 17.5 hours.

  Details of facilities available on an individual prisoner basis can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are held in each special secure unit, stating(a) the number of prisoners held on remand and the nature of crimes for which convicted prisoners were sentenced, (b) the national origin or citizenship of the prisoners, (c) the religion of the prisoner, (d) their special category status, (e) how long the prisoner has been housed in a special secure unit and (f) on what date each prisoner was last examined medically. [52461]

  Beverley Hughes
  Currently there is only one special secure unit (SSU) in operation which is located at Whitemoor prison. The eight prisoners in the SSU have all been convicted by the courts. Their nationality is 834W
  British (five), Turkish (two) and Brazilian (one). Three of those held in the SSU have been convicted of murder with the other five having been convicted of drug related charges.

  The declared religion is Church of England (three); Muslim (two), Roman Catholic (one). The remaining two prisoners decline to state their religion. All those held in the SSU are Category A 'Exceptional Risk' prisoners.

  The periods of time the prisoners have been held in the SSU is as follows: 0–6 months (four); six-12 months one; 12–18 months (0), 18–24 months (two) and over two years (one).

  Every prisoner in the SSU is medically examined on a quarterly basis. The last occasion each was examined were on 1 March 2002 (one), 6 March 2002 (six) and 14 March 2002 (one). Every prisoner is, of course, able to consult a doctor or nurse when required.

  Prison Pay Review Body
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the recommendations of the Prison Pay Review Body are; and when they will be implemented. [52944]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend (Huw Edwards) on 21 March 2002, Official Report, column 480W.

PRIME MINISTER

  Visit (North Down)
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to visit North Down in 2002. [51714]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 May. [51707]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Organised Crime
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress there has been in the past six months in the fight against organised crime in Northern Ireland. [51670]

  Jane Kennedy
  We are beginning to make a real impact in disrupting and dismantling the organised crime gangs in Northern Ireland with a further 60 recruits. Just last Friday, the police foiled another armed robbery against a security firm and released a hostage in a daring, well executed, operation.
  835W
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent action has been taken to tackle(a) smuggling and (b) other forms of organised crime. [51694]

  Jane Kennedy
  In September 2000 the Government established an Organised Crime Task Force in Northern Ireland. The task force, which I chair, bring the various agencies that can make a difference, such as the police service of Northern Ireland and HM Customs and Excise to agree crime types for concerted multi-agency action. The agencies have scored a number of notable successes against smuggling gangs and other organised criminals over the past year, including the largest ever UK seizure (over 42 million) of smuggled cigarettes at Warrenpoint in November 2001. In February 2002 the police broke up a heroin distribution network and charged 15 people with serious drug offences.

  Tolerance and Inclusivity
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in meeting his objective of promoting tolerance and inclusivity in Northern Ireland since the Belfast agreement. [51672]

  Mr. Browne
  The conclusion, and the continuing implementation, of the agreement itself are great achievements for inclusivity, drawing into Government people from across both major traditions. Northern Ireland can be proud of them. But it is the responsibility for all in public life in Northern Ireland to ensure that no part of either community there feels left behind by the process, and that all aspirations are fully respected.

  School Anti-drugs Campaigns
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the anti-drugs campaigns being mounted in schools by the police service of Northern Ireland. [51673]

  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the anti-drugs campaigns being mounted in schools by the police service of Northern Ireland. [51690]

  Jane Kennedy
  I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the efforts being made in Northern Ireland by the PSNI to get the "don't do drugs" message across to children in our schools. It is an essential part of the overall anti-drugs strategy, with education at one end of the spectrum allied to detection and prosecution at the other. The PSNI recognises the value of including the anti-drugs message in the Citizenship and Safety Education (CASE) Programme which provides a platform for them to work in partnership with teachers and parents. The overarching aim is to encourage responsible behaviour in young people and empower them to live safely and that must include avoidance of drugs.

  It is of course impossible to say precisely how effective the incorporation of the drugs education programme is in terms of numbers deterred from drug abuse, but the theme is "Education", recognising that it is better to education the young on prevention than simply to concentrate on catching offenders.

  Community Safety Strategy
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's proposed community safety strategy. [51674]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government published a draft community safety strategy for consultation on 10 April 2002. The strategy sets out a broad framework for action at a local level to address local concerns about crime, the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour. It will require close co-operation from a wide range of agencies in both the devolved and non-devolved Administrations.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on community safety campaigns being mounted in schools by the police service of Northern Ireland. [51684]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland recognises the importance of education in promoting individual safety for young people and families and to help create safer communities. The Citizen and Safety Education (CASE) Programme has been developed in an attempt to establish close links between the police and the school community through the central themes of Protection, Education and Prevention. CASE provides a platform for police to work in partnership with teachers and parents. Together, they seek to present information and promote skills, attitudes and values, which encourage responsible behaviour in young people and empower them to live safely.

  The issues covered in the programme include the role of the police, vandalism, bullying, peer pressure, stranger danger, road safety, internet safety, abuse, respecting others, young people and the law, underage drinking, solvent abuse and drugs and the law. Over 80 officers are involved in the CASE programme and it is hoped to significantly increase that number for the next academic year. Of the 1,182 schools in Northern Ireland, PSNI is currently working in 940, focusing on pupils at Key Stages I, II and III.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the promotion of crime prevention and community safety in Northern Ireland. [51692]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government have taken forward a number of crime prevention campaigns in Northern Ireland with appropriate partners. In addition, a draft community safety strategy for consultation was published on 10 April 2002. The strategy sets out a broad framework for action at a local level to address local concerns about crime, the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour.

  Devolved Institutions
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [51675]

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the operation in the past 12 months of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. [51687]
  837W
  Dr. John Reid
  The devolved institutions have already embarked on a wide ranging process of review and reform. Since last November a new stability has been achieved. I believe that, under the able leadership of the First and Deputy First Ministers, the institutions offer the potential for greatly improved public services, through local decisions by local people reflecting local circumstances.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress with the decommissioning of weapons by paramilitary groups. [516891

  Jane Kennedy
  The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported, on 8 April 2002, that it had witnessed an event in which the IRA leadership has put a varied and substantial quantity of ammunition, arms and explosive material beyond use. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning confirmed that they have made an inventory of the arms concerned.

  The process is on-going and we now need to see loyalist groups commence decommissioning. There needs also to be a decommissioning of mindsets. Terrorist groups must end all forms of paramilitary activity and dismantle the apparatus of terrorism.

  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effectiveness in the past year of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. [51677]

  Dr. John Reid
  The devolved institutions have already embarked on a wide-ranging process of review and reform. Since last November a new stability has been achieved. I believe that, under the able leadership of the First and Deputy First Ministers, the institutions offer the potential for greatly improved public services, through local decisions by local people reflecting local circumstances.

  Decommissioning
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest act of decommissioning by the IRA. [51676]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported, on 8 April 2002, that it had witnessed an event in which the IRA leadership has put a varied and substantial quantity of ammunition, arms and explosive material beyond use. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning confirmed that they have made an inventory of the arms concerned.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to bring about further decommissioning of weapons. [51678]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported, on 8 April 2002, that it had witnessed an event in which the IRA leadership has put a varied and substantial quantity of ammunition, arms and explosive material beyond use.

  The process is on-going and we now need to see loyalist groups commence decommissioning. There needs also to be a decommissioning of mindsets. Terrorist
  838W
  groups must end all forms of paramilitary activity and dismantle the apparatus of terrorism. The timing of any future decommissioning events is a matter for the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and the representatives of the various paramilitary organisations.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the amount of IRA weapons recently put beyond use as a proportion of the estimated total IRA weapons arsenal. [51683]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported, on 8 April 2002, that it had witnessed an event in which the IRA leadership has put a varied and substantial quantity of ammunition, arms and explosive material beyond use. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning confirmed that they have made an inventory of the arms concerned. It has not been possible at this time to assess the percentage of the Provisional IRA's weaponry involved.

  The Commission's mandate under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement is to facilitate the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms. The Government have every confidence in General de Chastelain and his colleagues and respect their wishes on how best to proceed to fulfil their mandate.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many weapons the IRA has put beyond use; when this process was completed; what confirmation he has received from General John de Chastelain that the process is on-going; and if he will make a statement on the process of decommissioning. [42913]

  Dr. John Reid
  The second IRA act of decommissioning on 8 April 2002 demonstrates that the IRA is committed to the continuation of the decommissioning process.

  The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning have confirmed they have made an inventory of the arms concerned—the British and Irish Governments will be provided with this when the task is completed.

  International Terrorism
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on links between terrorist groups in Northern Ireland and terrorist organisations in other countries. [51679]

  Jane Kennedy
  We are aware that various terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland have been linked to international terror groups at various points over the last 30 years, and this is a matter of concern.

  The peace process in Northern Ireland is not perfect. There are still issues to be resolved. This will only come about through dialogue and parties fulfilling their responsibilities under the Belfast Agreement.

  Fugitives
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about his policy on fugitives from justice. [51680]
  839W
  Dr. John Reid
  At the talks at Weston Park last summer, both the Irish and UK Governments recognised that there is an issue to be addressed, with the completion of the early release scheme, about supporters of organisations now on ceasefire against whom there are outstanding prosecutions, and in some cases extradition proceedings, for offences committed before 10 April 1998. Such people would, if convicted, stand to benefit from the early release scheme. The Governments accept that it would be a natural development of the scheme for such prosecutions not to be pursued. Consideration continues of the best way to discharge this commitment.

  Prisoner Releases
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners have been released under the Good Friday agreement; and what groups those prisoners have been affiliated with. [516811

  Jane Kennedy
  To date (23 April 2002), 447 individuals have been released early under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.

  Information is held, for management purposes, in relation to the perceived paramilitary association of prisoners in Northern Ireland. The table sets out details of the perceived association of the 447 individuals granted early release.

  Perceived association

  Total

  PIRA

  206

  INLA

  24

  Former INLA

  8

  Republican Association

  3

  UDA

  87

  UFF

  14

  UVF

  67

  RHC

  3

  LVF

  17

  Loyalist Association

  6

  Criminal or No Association

  12

  Total

  447

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost has been to date of the Saville inquiry. [51682]

  Mr. Browne
  The cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry to the Northern Ireland Office, as at 31 March 2002, is £57.9 million. This figure does not include costs to other Departments such as the Ministry of Defence.

  United States (Community Support)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the US Government on US support for communities in Northern Ireland. [51685]

  Dr. John Reid
  I have discussed this issue with the US Government and a range of US organisations during my visits in February and March. I am grateful for the support the United States gives to Northern Ireland. I am also 840W
  grateful to organisations like the Irish American Partnership and the Ireland Funds for what they have done for Northern Ireland over the years.

  Competition Policy
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the action he has taken in the last 12 months on competition policy in financial services in Northern Ireland. [51686]

  Dr. John Reid
  This matter has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Police Service
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on community safety campaigns being mounted in schools by the police service of Northern Ireland. [51688]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) ref. 51684.

  Fireworks
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what regulations cover the sale of fireworks in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [51691]

  Jane Kennedy
  At present the sale of fireworks is governed by the Explosives Act 1875 and Explosives (Fireworks) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999. The Explosive (Fireworks) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 which has been laid before Parliament will then prohibit the purchase, possession, sale and use of garden fireworks except under licence and will come into effect from 6 May 2002.

  Terrorist Finance
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Government are taking to tackle the financing of terrorism in Northern Ireland. [51693]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government's strategy for tackling terrorist crime in Northern Ireland is two fold. First, the police must have available to them robust legislative powers. The Terrorism Act 2000 contains a number of financial provisions for seeking information and restraining assets. These powers were supplemented by the Anti-Terrorist Crime and Security Act 2001, passed in the wake of the events on 11 September.

  Second, in September 2000, the Government established an Organised Crime Task Force for Northern Ireland. The task force, which I chair, brings the various agencies that can make a difference, such as the police service of Northern ireland and HM Customs and Excise to agree crime types for concerted multi-agency action. The agencies have scored a number of notable successes over the past year, including the largest ever UK seizure (over 42 million) of smuggled cigarettes at Warrenpoint in November 2001. In February 2002 the police broke up a heroin distribution network and charged 15 people with serious drugs offences.

  Terrorist Amnesty
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on amnesty for convicted terrorists at large. [51695]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), ref. 51680.

  Proceeds of Crime
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions his Department has had with the Criminal Assets Bureau regarding Government co-operation initiatives on the recovery of the proceeds of crime. [51696]

  Jane Kennedy
  My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), and officials have visited the Criminal Asset bureau and the Northern Ireland Office has regular contact with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on a range of issues including policy on the recovery of proceeds of crime. PSNI and other UK law enforcement agencies have successful operational links with a wide range of bodies in the Republic of Ireland, including the Criminal Asset Bureau.

  District Policing Partnership Boards
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the establishment of the District Policing Partnership Boards in Northern Ireland; and what the reason for the delay in their establishment has been. [53214]

  Jane Kennedy
  District Policing Partnerships will be established when the appointment process, which includes the appointment of the independent members, has been completed. The statutory code of practice governing the appointment members is currently out for consultation. The consultation process is scheduled to conclude on 22 May 2002.

  Solar Panels
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what buildings owned by his Department have solar panels installed. [53492]

  Dr. John Reid
  My Department has no buildings with solar panels installed.

  Oversight Commissioner
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the latest report received from the Oversight Commissioner. [53945]

  Jane Kennedy
  In accordance with section 68(4)(a) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, I have today laid a copy of the Oversight Commissioner's first statutory report for the year 2002 before this House.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will instruct Government Departments to investigate how they might increase the number and value of fair trade products that they purchase. [36081]

  Clare Short
  Through the Department for International Development, the Government have supported fair trade (FT) initiatives for a number of years, both in developing countries and in the UK. This support forms part of a wider dialogue with the private sector and civil society to encourage the adoption of more socially responsible and ethical trade practices. As companies and consumers become more aware of the connection between the way business is done and its impact on the livelihoods of people in developing countries, so the pressure for positive change grows.

  To this end, DFID has provided £250,000 this year to support the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI). The ETI is a consortium of UK retail companies (with a combined annual turnover of nearly £100 billion), NGOs and trade unions committed to working together to identify and promote best practice in the implementation of codes of labour. ETI corporate members are required to report compliance down their supply chains against a base code founded on the ILO convention.

  In addition, we are providing £120,000 to the Fair Trade Foundation over three years (2001–03) in support of its efforts to target new consumers through its annual Fair Trade Fortnight campaigns. The fortnight is designed to highlight the positive developmental impacts of FT and the range of FT products on offer.

  With regard to direct purchasing of FT products by Government Departments, value for money considerations and the limited number of commodities for which internationally agreed FT standards exist, currently make it impractical to link Government purchasing policy to the FT mark.

  Departmental Overseas Visits
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many overseas visits have been undertaken by parliamentary private secretaries in her Department at departmental expense in each of the last four years; and at what cost to public funds. [36817]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Israel
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contingency plans she has to replace DFID-funded projects in the west bank and Gaza Strip damaged by Israeli attacks. [40623]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 683W.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on energy costs incurred by her Department in each of the last 10 years. [42440]
  843W
  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 268W.

  Palestine
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 994W, on Palestine, what assessment she has made of the cost of damage as a result of military action during the last 12 months to each of the projects listed. [52961]

  Clare Short
  Our latest firm information is that two projects have sustained direct damage. A vehicle provided to support primary health care management development at Bir Zeit University was damaged during an aerial attack on Ramallah. A community centre funded through the Save the Children Fund managed water and sanitation project in Rafah has also been damaged. The total cost of the damage has not yet been confirmed.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many times special advisers have accompanied Ministers on overseas visits in each of the last five years; which countries were visited; and what the total cost of each individual visit was. [47151]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 222W.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many special advisers there were in her Department; and what their salaries were in each of the last five years. [46955]

  Clare Short
  At any one time there are no more than two special advisers employed in my Department. With reference to the salaries of special advisers. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 11W.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many times Ministers in her Department have travelled abroad at taxpayers' expense since March 2001; what countries they visited; and what the total cost of each visit was. [47107]

  Clare Short
  Since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas 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. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House. The 1999 list contained information on all such visits undertaken from 2 May 1997 to 31 April 1999. Details for travel undertaken in the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published soon.

  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.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how much was spent by departmental special advisers on food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks for entertainment purposes in each of the last five years; [46848]

  (2) how much was spent by Ministers in her Department on food, alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks for entertainment purposes in each of the last five years. [47051]

  Clare Short
  In the last five years total entertainment costs for the top management in DFID breaks down as follows:

  £

  2001–02

  12,904

  2001–03

  8,976

  2001–04

  5,440

  2002–03

  1,203

  It is not possible to provide a breakdown as asked in the question.

  Part-time Employees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many and what proportion of the staff of her Department are part-time employees. [47172]

  Clare Short
  Of the 1,597 staff who are employed in DFID headquarters in London and East Kilbride, 123 staff work part-time. This equates to 7.7 per cent. of our HQ work force.

  Palestinian Territories
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what information she has collated concerning the destruction by Israeli military forces of aid projects(a) funded and (b) supported by her Department in the Palestinian territories. [49267]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 11 March 2002, Official Report, column 683W. I have also placed in the Library of the House a list of EC funded infrastructure projects which have been destroyed which were part funded by DFID.

  Overseas Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Project Management Agency Support for Regional Trade Negotiating Machinery in the Caribbean region. [49158]

  Clare Short
  My department undertook a review of its support to the Regional Negotiating Machinery in March 2001. In consequence from June 2001 we improved the management arrangements and now support the Regional Negotiating Machinery directly.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Transmission Institutional Strengthening Project in India; [49202]
  845W
  (2) what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Power Sector Reform Institutional Strengthening Distribution Project in India; [49185]

  (3) what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Andhra Pradesh Power Sector Reform Institutional Strengthening Project in India. [49177]

  Clare Short
  Power sector reform is a key development challenge for India. In many states, power subsidies take a large proportion of the government budget, squeezing out expenditure on anti-poverty programmes. A high quality power supply is also critical for economic growth.

  DFID is supporting the reform and restructuring of the power sector in three states, Anclhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa. Power sector reform is highly complex and also new to India, and assistance has been requested from DFID and other donors to help design and carry forward the structural changes needed to reform the sector and place it on a proper commercial footing.

  In all three states, DFID is making available assistance, including experts with international experience of successfully carrying out similar work, following competitive tendering processes to ensure maximum value for money. Most of the support so far has been provided by Indian experts, even when international companies have been engaged. Expatriate inputs are limited to specialist areas where international experience is of greatest benefit and local expertise is not available. These are long term projects, designed to respond flexibly to local needs. They are reviewed regularly, including market comparisons to ensure that value for money is maintained.

  In Andhra Pradesh, considerable progress has been made in helping the state government achieve its objectives on power reform, but the process has been more difficult and has taken longer than originally envisaged.

  In Orissa, DFID assistance to the state grid company finished when the company was privatised. We continue to support the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission and also the Orissa Transmission Company. Both of these programmes are making good progress.

  In Madhya Pradesh, DFID has been asked to provide assistance with power sector reform and competitive tendering process is underway to identify suitable expertise.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Support for Improving Corporate Services and Management in the Rwanda Revenue Authority Project. [49201]

  Clare Short
  Since 1997 my Department has committed almost £11 million in support of the Rwanda Revenue Project. This particular project began in September 1999 and finished in March 2002, with a budget of £2.3 million.

  In April 2000, DFID concluded that management capacity problems in the RRA were more severe than at first thought and DFID inputs were increased accordingly.

  846W
  By the end of the project, we had succeeded in reforming the corporate services and management of the RRA. Proper financial organisation had been put in place; and information technology strategy had been developed and implemented; training in internal audit procedures had been completed; the RRA were acting on the recommendations made in an organisation and staffing review; and the RRA had a corporate plan in place, against which they were measuring their own performance.

  Our assessment is that this project has achieved good value for money. The management reforms are significant and have contributed to a major improvement in revenue collection More still needs to be done at senior and middle management level, but the basic corporate structures are now in place.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Rural Access Programme in Nepal. [49163]

  Clare Short
  The Rural Access Programme in Nepal is an ambitious programme of rural transport infrastructure and related activities aimed at eliminating rural poverty. It is being implemented over a six year period that has only just started. It is therefore too early to judge the value for money achievements of the whole programme at this time.

  An inception review of the programme was completed in April. This review took into account the current conflict situation in Nepal and the impact on programme implementation; how more immediate impact can be achieved for communities affected by conflict; and the approach to the provision of technical assistance.

  The outcome of this review is that there will be improved modalities for working in conflict affected areas and on conflict issues. This will include working with organisation with an established local presence and by strengthening and empowering existing groups and adopting working methods that bridge the divides giving rise to the current conflict. Also, there will be a reduction in the numbers of international consultants without compromising quality and supervision, through a more rapid localisation of key positions in the technical assistance team.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Technical Co-operation Training-Nigeria, Cameroon and the Gambia Project. [49171]

  Clare Short
  The Technical Co-operation Training Programmes (TCTP) for these three countries came under DFID's global TCTP, which provided a centrally administered mechanism for giving training awards to overseas candidates linked to our individual country programmes. The programmes in these countries have now ended. Value for money considerations were taken into account when the contract for running the global programme was awarded to the managing agent. The impact of the training in terms of contribution to individual project objectives in Nigeria, Cameroon and the Gambia was assessed as part of our regular project monitoring procedures.
  847W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Improving Rural Livelihood in North and East Uganda project. [49187]

  Clare Short
  An independent project review of DFID's support to the Improving Rural Livelihood in North and East Uganda project was undertaken in May 2001. It reported that, overall, the project outputs were likely to be largely achieved. In particular, the capacity for client-oriented research, technology transfer, and the development of technology approaches and systems have improved. A further review will be conducted in June 2002.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Support for Improving Tax Administration in the Rwanda Authority project. [49193]

  Clare Short
  Since 1997 my Department has committed almost £11 million in support of the Rwanda Revenue project. The specific project referred to in the question began in September 1999 and finished in August 2001, with a budget of over £2 million.

  An improvement in revenue collection became clear from late 2000. During the last year of the project the VAT department exceeded its revenue targets, the RRA modernised its tax and customs departments and revenue collections were also on target. It is our assessment that this project has achieved good value for money, initially through rebuilding the capacity of the Rwanda Revenue Authority (RRA) which had been shattered by the genocide, and then through significant improvements in revenue collection.

  The Rwandan Minister of Finance has described the project as DFID's most important support to Rwanda. However, more work remains to be done if the RRA's improved performance is to be sustained. DFID has therefore extended its support to the RRA through a new project, which runs from October 2001 to December 2003.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Technical Assistance for Public Enterprise Reform in Orissa project in India. [49195]

  Clare Short
  Technical Assistance for Public Enterprise Reform in Orissa is a component of the Orissa Public Sector Reforms project, the purpose of which is to help the Government of Orissa allocate increased resources to the needs of the poor and improve the effectiveness of its resource use in order to reduce poverty. The assistance has been provided by international consultants selected following a competitive tendering process; Indian experts are also involved. An independent evaluation of the project was conducted in November 2001. It included both value for money considerations and technical review. It concluded that the project had progressed well and was providing value for money.
  848W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Technical Assistance for the Introduction of Value Added Tax in Andhra Pradesh Project in India. [49199]

  Clare Short
  Introduction of VAT is a complex and difficult process and DFID was asked for technical assistance to help the Government of Andhra Pradesh ensure that they were ready to implement the new system by the original target date of April 2002.

  International consultants have been utilised in designing the process in areas where local expertise was not available. They were selected through a competitive tendering exercise to ensure maximum value for money. Much of the assistance has been provided by Indian experts.

  DFID has regularly monitored the project. The last annual review in December 2001 concluded that the project was completely on track, resulting in Andhra Pradesh being one of the few states in India ready for the target date. The Government of India has since decided to delay VAT implementation to April 2003 as many states were not ready.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Western India Rainfed Farming Project Phase II. [49159]

  Clare Short
  Phase 1 of the Western India Rainfed Farming project gave an economic rate of return of about 40 per cent. and had a substantial impact in reducing the poverty of over 50,000 poor tribal people. Phase II, which began in 1999, is expanding the coverage to over 500,000 people.

  The 2002 annual review of Phase II found that the project is well on the way to achieving its objectives, and is having a significant impact on the lives of the poor in the project area. An independent mid-term evaluation is planned for 2003. This will look further at a number of issues, including those relating to value for money.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Russian President's Management Training Initiative: Main Phase. [49179]

  Clare Short
  DFID awarded a three-year contract for the management of the Russian President's Management Training Initiative (Main Phase) to the British Council under a waiver of competition in March 1999. The waiver was granted at that time, as the British Council was the only UK company with the necessary expertise to undertake this work. In order to ensure the key consideration of value for money, a Project Compliance Investigation was undertaken prior to contracting which confirmed that the British Council costs offered value for money. A comprehensive review of the performance of the project was undertaken by DFID's Eastern Europe and Central Asia Department in June 2001. The review team concluded that the project has been going well and its purpose "to achieve improvements in the performance of 540 enterprise managers" was likely to be completely or largely achieved and still offered value for money.
  849W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Provision of Technical Co-operation Training Services Project in Kenya. [49165]

  Clare Short
  There is no Provision of Technical Co-operation Training Services Project in Kenya. Training is included as a component in many projects funded by my Department in Kenya. Its value for money is routinely assessed as part of DFID's monitoring and evaluation of each project.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Smallholder Dairy Project Phase II in Kenya. [49161]

  Clare Short
  The last assessment of the Smallholder Dairy Project Phase II was made in March 2002. Its preliminary findings were that the project is on target to achieve its goal of giving poor dairy farmers improved access to goods, services and markets; and other farmers access to agricultural knowledge services.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Bulgaria: Solid Waste Management Project. [49167]

  Clare Short
  This project was formally reviewed in June 2001 and has been monitored on a regular basis since then. It is an institutional building project at municipal level to improve the management and delivery of municipal services. DFID assessments have been very positive and have shown that the project has provided value for money in terms of (i) its impact on the two focus municipalities of Kardjali and Lom to help strengthen their management capacity to deal with municipal planning, and budgeting and also a wider impact of strengthening links between central Government and the municipal authorities and (ii) successfully providing the Kardjali authorities with technical assistance and expertise in support of the development of a multi-million euro ISPA (Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession) project which is expected to be approved by the EC and its IFI partners in the near future.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Privatisation and Capital Market Development Project in Bosnia. [49169]

  Clare Short
  The project ended in March. We are arranging a final review.

  The project was last reviewed in October 2001. This was one of a series of regular reviews arranged to monitor progress on the project and to agree modifications to it as appropriate. The project's original objectives of supporting capital markets development were affected by the failure of the entities to proceed with large company and mass privatisation. We have also attempted to fill gaps in assistance caused by the failure of other donors to provide agreed inputs.

  This was a complex project operating in difficult circumstances. We shall make a judgment on its overall value for money in the light of the planned review.
  850W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Caribbean Overseas Territories Government Accounting Reform Project in Anguilla. [49203]

  Clare Short
  The project aims to modernise financial and accounting policies, systems and procedures in support of better management of Government business and improved accountability, transparency and effectiveness of Government activity. In Anguilla, up-to-date financial accounting systems were successfully commissioned in the Treasury Department and the Ministry of Finance in January 2001; and we are considering further possible support to provide on-line access for other Anguillan Government Departments. The real test of project success will be the extent to which the information and data that it provides is used effectively. It is too early properly to assess this, but we shall be monitoring progress carefully.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Technical Co-operation Training Programme, 1999–2000 and 2001-–02 in Jamaica. [49157]

  Clare Short
  The Technical Co-operation Training Scheme for Jamaica came under DFID's global TCTP, which provided a centrally administered mechanism for giving training awards to overseas candidates linked to our individual country programmes. The programme in Jamaica ended in 1998. Value for money considerations were taken into account when the contract for running the global programme was awarded to the managing agent. The impact of the training in terms of contribution to individual project objectives in Jamaica was assessed as part of our regular project monitoring procedures.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Adult Morbidity and Mortality Project Phase II in Tanzania. [49175]

  Clare Short
  The Adult Morbidity and Mortality Project (Phase 2) provides quality health and poverty data from four selected districts, which is used to inform national public policies. In Tanzania, like many low income countries, vital registration systems are barely used, and large scale surveys can only be undertaken every five years or so. An independent review in August 2001 confirmed the viability and cost-effectiveness of the model.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Jamaica Performance Improvement Project. [49208]

  Clare Short
  As with all DFID funded initiatives, the Jamaica Performance Improvement Project is subject to regular review. The next review is scheduled to take place in May 2002.

  The project has been recently extended and in order to ensure value for money we have put out components to competitive tender whenever it is practical to do so.

  India
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is giving to help reconstruction in the Gujarat region of India following the earthquake in January 2001. [53676]

  Clare Short
  DFID's priority was to ensure that those who survived the earthquake were cared for until normal services could be restored, for which we set aside £10 million. The Government of India developed plans for the rehabilitation and reconstruction, which are being largely funded by the World bank and the Asian Development bank. DFID is not directly financing reconstruction work.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Financial Management Academy Project in Bangladesh. [49189]

  Clare Short
  The objective of this project is to improve the financial management capacity of the Government of Bangladesh by helping it to institutionalise effective training in financial management. The project commenced in May 1999.

  In addition to close monitoring by the DFID office in Bangladesh, the project was independently evaluated in August 2001. The evaluation concluded that the project had made good progress in its first two years towards building FIMA into a national resource for financial management training.

  West Bank and Gaza
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Assistance to the Palestinian Negotiations Affairs Department Project in the west bank and Gaza. [49205]

  Clare Short
  The purpose of this project is to help build Negotiations Affairs Department capacity and ensure effective preparation for final status talks with Israel. It is a key component in supporting the middle east peace process. We are in regular contact with both the project managers and the Palestinian Authority to review and ensure its continued progress. This is being achieved through a flexible and responsive approach to the timing of specific inputs, taking account of the changing political situation. A number of international partners have commented positively on the dynamism and quality of the project staff.

  Uganda
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the value for money achieved by the Integrated Lake Management Project in Uganda. [49180]

  Clare Short
  An independent project review of DFID's support to the Integrated Lake Management Project was undertaken in September 2001. The review reported that overall, the project outputs and purpose, in terms of an integrated Lake Management Plan and supporting 852W
  institutional frameworks, are likely to be achieved on Lake George. Lake Kyoga is a more complex system. However, there are early, encouraging signs that the project purpose can also be achieved on this Lake. A further review will be conducted in September 2002.

  Debt
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what discussions she has had with developing country Governments during the last six months regarding definitions of debt sustainability; [53658]

  (2) how her Department defines debt sustainability. [53659]

  Clare Short
  There is no single definition of debt sustainability, which can be applied to all developing countries. For the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC), the international community has agreed two transparent thresholds: the net present value (NPV) of external debt should be below 150 per cent. of export earnings and 250 per cent. of Government revenues.

  We regularly discuss these issues with developing countries. We have also funded two meetings this year at which representatives from the HIPC countries debated these issues and fed their views into the on-going evaluation of the HIPC initiative by the Operations Evaluation Department of the World bank.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the debts owed by heavily indebted poor countries constitutes debts owed to the IDA. [53625]

  Clare Short
  The share of the estimated costs attributed to the World bank group (including IDA) for the HIPC initiative is US$8.1 billion in 2001 net present value terms, out of the total costs of US$36.4 billion.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what action her Department is taking to ensure that the costs of the structural adjustment programmes of the HIPC Initiative are not borne disproportionately by the poor; [53616]

  (2) what evidence her Department has collated on the impact that the structural adjustment programmes of the HIPC initiative has had on economic growth rates of each of the HIPC countries; [53618]

  (3) what contribution the structural adjustment programmes of the HIPC Initiative has made to the good of poverty reduction. [53620]

  Clare Short
  The enhanced heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative, which was agreed in September 1999, provides deeper debt relief to poor countries committed to eradicating poverty. Up to $100 billion debt could be written off for the 42 HIPC countries, reducing their debts by more than two thirds. On average, the 26 countries that have already qualified for HIPC relief will spend three times more on the social sectors in 2002–05 than on debt service over the same period.
  853W
  fAn important feature of the HIPC initiative is the recognition of the link between debt relief and poverty reduction in order to ensure the poor benefit from debt relief. Governments are developing national poverty reduction strategies, involving civil society and international donors, specifying how resources, including savings from debt relief, will be spent. As part of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) approach, the World bank and IMF have committed to undertaking poverty and social impact analysis (PSIA) of major macroeconomic and structural reforms likely to have significant impact on the poor. The World bank and IMF are leading a programme of work on PSIA and are realigning their programmes with PRSPs in these countries. We are supporting this work by piloting PSIA studies in six countries. We are also working with partner countries on their PRSPs, through our bilateral programmes.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assessment she has made of the impact of falling commodity prices on debt sustainability; and whether she has changed her assessment of debt sustainability levels of heavily indebted poor countries accordingly; [53657]

  (2) how levels of debt sustainability calculated by the HIPC Initiative were changed by the events of 11 September. [53587]

  Clare Short
  We have been following closely the impact of falling commodity prices on developing countries since well before the events of 11 September. At the annual meetings of the World bank and IMF in Ottawa last November, we raised this concern and asked bank and fund staff to revisit the debt sustainability analyses of all commodity dependent low-income countries, including HIPCs. The IMF and World bank analysis, published last month, shows that, although the situation varies from country to country, the external debt indicators for most HIPC countries have deteriorated, and several HIPC countries now face unsustainable debt burdens. Following UK pressure, the World bank and IMF boards have agreed to provide additional relief to countries in this situation. This was reconfirmed at the spring meetings last month.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what recent discussions she has had with World bank officials regarding the structural adjustment programmes of the HIPC initiative; [53617]

  (2) what recent discussions she has had with the heavily indebted poor country Governments regarding the structural adjustment programmes of the HIPC initiative. [53619]

  Clare Short
  At last month's spring meetings of the IMF and World bank apart form my attendance at the Development Committee which is also attended by many World bank officials, I also met James Wolfensohn, president of the World bank, to discuss among other things progress on the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative and the implementation of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) process. The international community remains committed to vigorous implementation and full financing of the initiative. It has been recognised that support is needed to integrate poverty and social impact analysis (PSIA) into national 854W
  poverty reduction strategies. The bank and fund are leading a programme of work on PSIA and are aligning their programmes with PRSPs in the poorest countries. My Department is supporting this work by piloting PSIA studies in six countries.

  I regularly meet Ministers from HIPC countries to discuss key issues affecting their development, including debt relief.

  Budget Allocations
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will break down her Department's budget for 2000 and 2001 into the amount allocated for(a) the HIPC initiative, (b) bilateral aid and (c) multilateral aid. [53024]

  Clare Short
  Detailed figures for expenditure by calendar year are not readily available. Allocations for the 2000–01 and 2001–02 financial years were as follows:

  £ million

  2000–011

  2001–022

  Total DFID development budget

  3,252.5

  3,581.0

  of which:

  Bilateral assistance

  1,388.0

  1,734.1

  Multilateral assistance

  1,776.5

  1,737.2

  of which:

  HIPC initiative

  28.0

  24.5

  Administration and other

  88.0

  109.7

  1Outturn

  2Estimated

  Source:

  DFID departmental report 2002

  DFID's expenditure on the HIPC initiative as detailed in the table includes an element of technical co-operation as well as our direct contribution to the HIPC trust fund for the international costs of debt relief. Our share of EC payments to the HIPC trust fund over the past two years amounts to an additional £46.0 million—this expenditure also counts as part of DFID's multilateral assistance, but a breakdown by year is not yet available.

  The majority of the Government's expenditure on HIPC is in relation to the cancellation of commercial debts, and is not my Department's responsibility, although it does count towards our oda/GNI figure.

  Data Protection Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will place in the Library copies of each version of the internal guidance which have been drawn up by her Department since 1 January 1999 to assist staff in her Department to answer subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998. [53380]

  Clare Short
  Guidance for staff on all aspects of the Data Protection Act 1998 was produced by the Department for International Development in July 2001 and is available on the Department's intranet. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  African Development Bank
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the directors of the African Development bank regarding their lending policy. [53624]

  Clare Short
  Discussions with directors are conducted at official level. The lending policy of the bank is being reviewed and discussed by officials representing the UK

  Aid agencies

  Amount committed 2001 (£)

  Purpose

  Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

  144,285

  To cover shortfall for 2001.

  Office of the United Nations Security Coordinator (UNSECOORD)

  142,857

  To support an additional field security officer.

  United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)

  280,000

  To enable UNICEF to continue to strengthen its activities, which are focused on education, mine action and water and sanitation.

  World Health Organisation (WHO)

  800,000

  To provide support to WHO activities through the United Nations Consolidated Appeal Process 2001.

  International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC)

  1,000,000

  An additional contribution to its programmes in the region, focused on essential humanitarian support.

  World Food Programme (WFP)

  400,000

  To support with the current pipeline problems.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the conditions in Chechen refugee camps in Ingushetia. [53057]

  Clare Short
  My Department closely monitors the humanitarian situation in the North Caucasus, including Ingushetia. Assessments by UN agencies and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Ingushetia of the situation in camps for internally displaced people (IDPs) indicate that the situation for IDPs resident in Ingushetia is stable in terms of morbidity and mortality, and that there are no major outstanding humanitarian needs. But agencies agree that a full package of humanitarian assistance will continue to be required in light of the highly dependent nature of this population, and that the quality of assistance provided through humanitarian agencies within the Republic needs to be improved. We are addressing these needs through constant dialogue with, and through financial support to, the UN agencies and INGOs working in the region.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of health needs in Chechnya, with special reference to the prevalence of tuberculosis. [53053]

  Clare Short
  According to research by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) food, clothing and shelter are the top priority needs for internally displaced people (IDPs) and vulnerable persons in Chechnya. Tuberculosis is not currently listed as a priority.

  Basic health care is provided in numerous small health care centres, but the level of care is not known. ICRC's recent street survey showed that in Grozny out of 1,913 persons, 86.6 per cent. said they were in good health and in the rural areas out of 2,248 persons, 89.6 per cent. said
  856W
  and other donors in the context of the ninth replenishment of the African Development Fund, negotiations on which are currently under way.

  Chechnya
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department gives to aid agencies working in Chechnya. [53052]

  Clare Short
  DFID has proved the following assistance to aid agencies work in Chechnya:

  they were in good health. The cost of drugs and health care has frequently been mentioned as a problem in ICRC focus groups.

  Aid agencies are reluctant to start tuberculosis programmes in Chechnya when there is so much movement by IDPs because effective treatment requires continuing treatment which is very difficult to provide to shifting populations.

  Bilateral Aid
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of total UK bilateral aid each low-income country received in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; and how much each received in 1999–2000. [53059]

  Clare Short
  The information requested in given in the table. The figures have been provided in respect of calendar years as this is the basis on which statistics on official development assistance are collected.

  Bilateral official development assistance to low income countries

  £million

  Recipient

  UK oda

  Percentage of total UK oda

  1999

  Afghanistan

  3.72

  0.3

  Angola

  2.20

  0.2

  Armenia

  0.82

  0.1

  Azerbaijan

  0.74

  0.1

  Bangladesh

  71.02

  5.1

  Benin

  0.97

  0.1

  Bhutan

  0.01

  0.0

  Burkina Faso

  0.30

  0.0

  Burma

  0.71

  0.1

  Burundi

  0.47

  0.0

  Cambodia

  4.64

  0.3

  Cameroon

  6.84

  0.5

  Central African Republic

  0.01

  0.0

  Chad

  0.00

  0.0

  857W

  Bilateral official development assistance to low income countries

  £million

  Recipient

  UK oda

  Percentage of total UK oda

  China

  36.62

  2.6

  Comoros

  0.02

  0.0

  Congo Democratic Republic

  1.50

  0.1

  Congo Republic

  3.20

  0.2

  Cote d'Ivoire

  0.86

  0.1

  Eritrea

  0.43

  0.0

  Ethiopia

  7.44

  0.5

  Gambia

  1.20

  0.1

  Ghana

  56.73

  4.1

  Guinea

  0.54

  0.0

  Guinea-Bissau

  0.01

  0.0

  Haiti

  0.00

  0.0

  Honduras

  2.05

  0.1

  India

  81.39

  5.9

  Indonesia

  25.13

  1.8

  Kenya

  34.01

  2.4

  Kyrgyz Republic

  0.98

  0.1

  Laos

  0.55

  0.0

  Lesotho

  2.71

  0.2

  Liberia

  0.67

  0.0

  Madagascar

  0.53

  0.0

  Malawi

  47.76

  3.4

  Mali

  0.74

  0.1

  Mauritania

  0.20

  0.0

  Moldova

  0.66

  0.0

  Mongolia

  0.42

  0.0

  Mozambique

  30.55

  2.2

  Nepal

  16.33

  1.2

  Nicaragua

  3.62

  0.3

  Niger

  0.79

  0.1

  Nigeria

  12.97

  0.9

  Pakistan

  24.40

  1.8

  Rwanda

  16.40

  1.2

  Sao Tome and Principe

  0.00

  0.0

  Senegal

  0.45

  0.0

  Sierra Leone

  10.59

  0.8

  Somalia

  1.29

  0.1

  Sudan

  8.15

  0.6

  Tajikistan

  0.08

  0.0

  Tanzania

  54.78

  3.9

  Togo

  0.35

  0.0

  Turkmenistan

  0.10

  0.0

  Uganda

  59.57

  4.3

  Viet Nam

  5.16

  0.4

  Yemen

  1.09

  0.1

  Zambia

  39.30

  2.8

  Zimbabwe

  16.29

  1.2

  2000

  Afghanistan

  8.36

  0.5

  Angola

  5.46

  0.3

  Armenia

  1.82

  0.1

  Azerbaijan

  0.50

  0.0

  Bangladesh

  68.28

  3.8

  Benin

  0.09

  0.0

  Bhutan

  0.01

  0.0

  Burkina Faso

  0.30

  0.0

  Myanmar (Burma)

  0.69

  0.0

  Burundi

  1.15

  0.1

  Cambodia

  8.61

  0.5

  Cameroon

  5.33

  0.3

  Central African Republic

  0.01

  0.0

  Chad

  0.27

  0.0

  China

  55.12

  3.1

  Comoros

  0.02

  0.0

  Congo Democratic Republic (Zaire)

  5.30

  0.3

  Congo Republic

  0.03

  0.0

  Cote d'Ivoire

  0.72

  0.0

  Eritrea

  0.75

  0.0

  Ethiopia

  7.50

  0.4

  858W

  Bilateral official development assistance to low income countries

  £million

  Recipient

  UK oda

  Percentage of total UK oda

  Gambia

  1.39

  0.1

  Ghana

  52.79

  2.9

  Guinea

  0.26

  0.0

  Guinea-Bissau

  0.10

  0.0

  Haiti

  0.01

  0.0

  Honduras

  0.63

  0.0

  India

  134.87

  7.5

  Indonesia

  22.37

  1.2

  Kenya

  48.30

  2.7

  Kyrgyz Republic

  1.44

  0.1

  Laos

  1.40

  0.1

  Lesotho

  2.97

  0.2

  Liberia

  2.17

  0.1

  Madagascar

  1.40

  0.1

  Malawi

  64.01

  3.6

  Mali

  0.66

  0.0

  Mauritania

  0.65

  0.0

  Moldova

  0.73

  0.0

  Mongolia

  0.50

  0.0

  Mozambique

  54.61

  3.1

  Nepal

  15.20

  0.8

  Nicaragua

  1.14

  0.1

  Niger

  1.05

  0.1

  Nigeria

  15.12

  0.8

  Pakistan

  15.67

  0.9

  Rwanda

  34.79

  1.9

  Sao Tome and Principe

  0.00

  0.0

  Senegal

  1.58

  0.1

  Sierra Leone

  45.13

  2.5

  Somalia

  0.72

  0.0

  Sudan

  3.79

  0.2

  Tajikistan

  0.05

  0.0

  Tanzania

  100.89

  5.6

  Togo

  0.28

  0.0

  Turkmenistan

  0.09

  0.0

  Uganda

  143.07

  8.0

  Viet Nam

  5.24

  0.3

  Yemen

  3.02

  0.2

  Zambia

  73.60

  4.1

  Zimbabwe

  13.36

  0.7

  Source:

  DAC Online database.

  Bilateral Aid

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how many staff were involved in each of the last three years in preparing draft answers to written parliamentary questions; [49152]

    (2) what the cost was to her Department of answering written parliamentary questions in 2001; and how that cost was calculated. [49110]

    Clare Short
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 929W.

    Middle East
    Mrs. Spelman
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures she is taking to ensure that Palestinians are able to access essential medical care and treatment during the current crisis. [49728]

    Clare Short
    We have made clear to Israel at the highest level that we expect them to ensure that medical and humanitarian organisations and consular staff have
    859W
    uninterrupted access to those in need. The Foreign Secretary has stressed these concerns to Israeli Foreign Minister Peres on several occasions.

    Performance Targets
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the target has been in each of the last five years for efficiency savings as a percentage of total running costs for each of the non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible; and if the target was met. [49643]

    Clare Short
    My Department is responsible for three non-departmental public bodies. They incur no substantial running costs other than reimbursement of the travel expenses of members attending meeting which are essentially fixed costs. Targets for efficiency savings are therefore unnecessary.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Justices of the Peace
    Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many members of staff at his Department are justices of the peace; and if he has a strategy for his Department to encourage members of staff to become justices of the peace. [44556]

    Mr. Wills
    There are currently 16 members of staff in my Department who are Justices of the Peace. My Department fully supports those who are appointed as magistrates. All members of staff are entitled to 18 days special leave to undertake their duties as a magistrate, if they are appointed. The National Strategy for recruitment of magistrates will seek in part to encourage employers generally to be supportive of employees who wish to be magistrates.

    Performance Targets
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the target has been in each of the last five years for efficiency savings as a percentage of total running costs for each of the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible; and if the target was met. [49642]

    Mr. Wills
    Of the non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) for which the Department is responsible, the majority are Advisory or Tribunal NDPBs which we support directly, not through a grant or grant in aid. Targets for efficiency savings specifically for these NDPBs would therefore not be possible as their staff are not distinct from the main Department and cannot therefore be targeted separately.

    The Department is responsible for three Executive NDPBs: the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), the Legal Services Commission (LSC) and the Office of the Information Commissioner.

    CAFCASS was established only in April 2001, and it would therefore not yet be appropriate to set targets for efficiency savings. It is planned that CAFCASS will have a performance measure from 2003–04.
    860W
    Information about the performance of the LSC can be found it its most recent annual report, which is available in the House Library.

    The Information Commissioner does not set targets for efficiency savings in relation to savings as a percentage of total running costs. She sets a target for efficiency savings in three areas of the work of her office:
    The number of weighted notification transactions processed per officer day;
    The number of assessments completed and complaints closed per officer day; and
    The number of telephone calls received per line hour.

    In each case productivity gains of 2 per cent. have been included within the target, which is set to take account of changes in legislation and working practices. Performance against these targets over the last five years for which figures are available is shown in the following tables.

    Data for the Office of the Information Commissioner

    Actual

    Target

    Target met/missed

    Weighted notification transactions processed per officer day

    1996–97

    49.37

    46.26

    Met

    1997–98

    51.32

    46.71

    Met

    1998–99

    48.74

    50.88

    Missed

    1999–2000

    47.02

    55.64

    Missed

    2000–01

    52.48

    50.76

    Met

    Assessments completed and complaints closed per officer day

    1996–97

    0.82

    0.81

    Met

    1997–98

    0.81

    0.82

    Missed

    1998–99

    0.79

    0.86

    Missed

    1999–2000

    0.74

    0.92

    Missed

    2000–01

    0.87

    0.92

    Missed

    Number of telephone calls received per line hour

    1996–97

    11.75

    11.75

    Met

    1997–98

    11.77

    11.81

    Missed

    1998–99

    8.80

    12.25

    Missed

    1999–2000

    8.72

    8.80

    Missed

    2000–01

    9.06

    8.82

    Met

    Note:

    These figures are drawn from the annual reports of the Information Commissioner (previously the Data Protection Commissioner and Data Protection Registrar), which are available in the Library of the House.

    1901 Census
    Mr. Edward Davey
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what trigger points exist in the contract for the 1901 Census website for the Public Record Office to end the contract with QinetiQ for failure to meet their contractual obligations. [51563]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Officials in the PRO are in very frequent contact with their contractors QinetiQ Ltd, with a view to relaunching the online service as soon as this is practicable. There are a number of trigger points contained in the contract, but at the present time the PRO is concentrating its efforts on monitoring and evaluating the enhancement and testing work being carried out by QinetiQ on the census website. The PRO's top priority is to ensure that the relaunched service provides a consistently good service to users.
    861W
    Mr. Edward Davey
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate the Department has for the date for the re-launch of the 1901 Census website. [51561]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    QinetiQ Ltd is continuing to work on the technical enhancements, which are intended to make the site sufficiently robust to permit general Internet access and are being conducted with a sense of urgency. Once configuring of the technical enhancements is complete, rigorous testing will be undertaken on all aspects of the system. However, the most important consideration is to ensure that the service is re-launched successfully. The system will again be made available to designated service centres as part of the general re-introduction of the site. General on-line searches will be available as soon as practicable following testing and availability at the service centres.

    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the availability of the 1901 Census online. [53604]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    I refer the hon. Member to the answers I have given on several occasions, and most recently to the hon. Member for Slough on the 12 April 2002,Official Report, column 647W.

    King Edward VIII
    Mrs. Ellman
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to release the remaining records relating to King Edward VIII. [53334]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Any papers relating to King Edward VIII, which have not yet been released, will need to be re-reviewed by departments. It is hoped that the results of the review will be known and put into effect by the end of the year.

    Ministerial Training
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent by her Department on training in leadership skills for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52710]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The Lord Chancellor's Department has spent the following amounts on training in leadership skills for officials in each of the last five years:

    £

    2001–02

    451,491

    2000–01

    351,703

    1999–2000

    157,740

    1998–99

    1165,000

    1997–98

    Nil

    1 This is the total amount spent on training consultancy during 1998–99, which includes some expenditure on leadership skills training.

    During the period 2000–02, the Lord Chancellor's Department utilised £250,000 from the Invest to Modernise Fund, established by the Cabinet Office to support training in leadership skills as part of the civil service reform programme. This amount is included in the above figures.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what her estimate is of the cost in the next 12 months of the Budget changes to employers' national insurance contributions to(a) her Department, (b) agencies of her Department and (c) local government carrying out functions within the responsibility of her Department. [52077]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    This answer covers the headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department (including associated offices), the Court Service and Public Guardianship Office.

    It is estimated that the changes to employers' national insurance contributions announced in the Budget will increase pay costs on average by 0.7 per cent. next year.

    Criminal Damage
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost has been of criminal damage to her Department's buildings in each of the last four years. [44829]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The Lord Chancellor's Department does not hold specific records of the cost of criminal damage to buildings. Any repair costs incurred are met from contingency funds allocated to cover all reactive maintenance works of which criminal damage would be only one example. It would incur a disproportionate cost to the Department to break down the volume of repairs made and allocate them to specific causes.

    Delegated Legislation
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority (Funding) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52222]

    (2) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Magistrates' Courts (Transfer of Justices: Clerks' Functions) (Miscellaneous) (Amendments) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52204]

    (3) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52171]

    (4) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Crown Court (Amendment) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52214]

    (5) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52200]

    (6) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Criminal Defence Service (Recovery of Defence Costs Orders) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52169]

    (7) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52202]
    863W
    (8) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the European Communities (Matrimonial Jurisdiction and Judgments) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52192]

    (9) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52215]

    (10) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52217]

    (11) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Membership, Committee and Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52186]

    (12) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Magistrates' Courts (Children and Young Persons) (Amendment) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52220]

    (13) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Land Registration Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52195]

    (14) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Justices of the Peace (Commission Areas) (Amendment) Order 2001; and if she will make a statement. [52189]

    (15) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Community Legal Service (Funding) (Counsel in Family Proceedings) Order 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52166]

    (16) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Legal Advice and Assistance (Score) (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52216]

    (17) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Court of Protection Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52173]

    (18) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the European Communities (Matrimonial Jurisdiction and Judgments) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52210]

    (19) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Community Legal Service (Cost Protection) (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52174]

    (20) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) (Amendment) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52179]

    (21) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Magistrates' Courts (Detection and Forfeiture of Terrorist Cash) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52213]
    864W
    (22) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the European Communities (Lawyer's Practice) (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52194]

    (23) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Public Record Office (Fees) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52184]

    (24) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Magistrates' Courts (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52203]

    (25) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Civil Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52197]

    (26) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Legal Aid in Family Proceedings (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52170]

    (27) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals (England and Wales) (Amendment) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52211]

    (28) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Petty Sessions Areas (Divisions and Names) (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52205]

    (29) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Adoption (Amendment) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52178]

    (30) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Justices' Chief Executives (Accounts) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52208]

    (31) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Conduct of Litigation and Exercise of Rights of Audience) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52187]

    (32) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Family Law Reform Act 1987 (Commencement No. 3) Order 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52181]

    (33) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority (Provision of Court Houses) Order 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52206]

    (34) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Transfer of Justices' Clerks' Functions) Order 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52196]

    (35) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Community Legal Service (Financial) (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52167]

    (36) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Magistrates' Courts Committee Areas (Amendment) Order 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52190]

    865W
    (37) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Family Proceedings Courts (Family Law Act 1986) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52180]

    (38) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Crown Court (Amendment) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52199]

    (39) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Solicitors' Incorporated Practices (Amendment) Order 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52193]

    (40) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Commencement No. 7, Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52168]

    (41) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Magistrates' Courts (Adoption) (Amendment) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52177]

    (42) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Community Legal Service (Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52175]

    (43) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Magistrates' Courts (Amendment) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52218]

    (44) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Family Proceedings (Amendment) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52176]

    (45) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority (Accounts and Audit) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52183]

    (46) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Magistrates' Courts (Civilian Enforcement Officers) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52221]

    (47) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52198]

    (48) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Provision of Grants) Regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52188]

    (49) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors (Professional Conduct) (Amendment) Rules 2001 Approval Order; and if she will make a statement; [52207]

    (50) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Local government (Magistrates' Courts etc.) (Amendment) Order 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52201]

    866W
    (51) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Court of Protection (Enduring Powers of Attorney) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52172]

    (52) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Magistrates' Courts (Forms) (Amendment) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52219]

    (53) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (Procedure) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52209]

    (54) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Children (Allocation of Proceedings) (Amendment) Order 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52182]

    (55) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52212]

    (56) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Petty Sessions Areas (Amendment) Order 2001; and if she will make a statement; [52191]

    (57) what assessment she has made of the cost-effectiveness of the Court Funds (Amendment) Rules 2001; and if she will make a statement. [52185]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The Department makes an assessment of the costs and benefits of regulations when developing regulatory proposals. Where a regulatory proposal has an impact, in terms of costs, benefits and risks that affect businesses, charities and the voluntary sector, a regulatory impact assessment (RIA) is undertaken to inform policy development. Final RIAs are placed in the Libraries of both Houses when the regulation is presented to Parliament, but are not required for regulations where it has been assessed that no or negligible costs would be imposed or savings made, or those that increase statutory fees via a predetermined formula. Copies of final RIAs are available from the Libraries of both Houses.

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    European Union Directives
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the European Union directives and regulations relating to his Department that have been implemented in each of the last four years, specifying(a) the title and purpose of each, (b) the cost to public funds of each and (c) the cost to businesses of each. [39114]
    867W
    Malcolm Wicks
    The following EU legislation has been implemented:Council Directive 98/49/EC on safeguarding the supplementary pension rights of employed and self-employed persons moving within the Community was implemented ahead of the deadline of 25 July 2001.
    The regulation that implements the European Social Fund (ESF) for the 2000–06 period is Regulation (EC) No.1784/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council established on 12 July 1999.
    There have been three packages of Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations to Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 (Regulations (EC) 123/1998, 1399/1999 and 1386/2001). These are regular amendments to the EC regulations, which coordinate the operation of member states' social security schemes:

    123/98: Administrative changes.

    1399/99: Administrative changes.

    1386/01: Administrative changes.

    307/99: Extends the scope of the EC provisions on social security to cover students.

    Information on costs to public funds and to businesses is not held in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is limited to direct administration expenditure. Departments are required to produce regulatory impact assessments for proposals likely to impose significant costs on business. None was required for the above legislation.

    Community Service Orders
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have lost benefit as a result of breaching their community service orders; and what the average loss of benefit has been, broken down into claimants of(a) income support, (b) jobseeker's allowance and (c) training allowances. [40453]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The community sentence and benefits measures aim to encourage greater compliance with community orders. Therefore sanctions apply only when people receiving the relevant benefit do not comply with their orders. The number of people who have lost benefit as a result of breaching their community orders is shown in the table.

    Benefit

    Number of individuals

    Average weekly loss of benefit (£)

    Income support

    16

    16.31

    Jobseeker's allowance

    23

    40.72

    Training allowance

    0

    0

    Total

    39

    —

    Notes:

    1. All figures are unrounded.

    2. Data are based on clerical returns received at the DWP Information Centre between 15 October 2001 and 4 April 2002, relating to 15 October 2001 and 15 March 2002.

    3. Average weekly loss of benefit has been calculated on an individual recipient basis using the jobseeker's allowance payment system (JSAPS) and the income support computer system (ISCS).

    4. There are four probation service pilot areas, Derbyshire, Hertfordshire, Teesside and West Midlands.

    Source:

    CS Stats forms 1 and 2 (Withdrawal of Benefits Pilot) Information Centre, ASD

    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been spent on the pilot scheme to reduce the benefits of people who breach their community service orders. [40454]
    868W
    Malcolm Wicks
    As of 5 April 2002, the cost to the Department of implementing the community sentences and benefits pilots running in four probation service areas was £314,350, approximately £262,000 being one-off initial set up costs, including changes to the national computer systems. At present, excluding the set-up costs of £262,000, the cost per sanction is approximately £1,340.

    Benefits Offices (Security)
    Chris Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) deaths, (b) serious injuries and (c) recorded incidence of verbal abuse there were in Benefits Agency offices in each of the last 10 years. [42531]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    [holding answer 12 March 2002]: The available information on the number of incidents of verbal abuse occurring in Benefits Agency offices is in the table.

    Incidents of verbal abuse in Benefits Agency offices

    Number of incidents

    1999

    1,624

    2000

    2,414

    2001

    2,379

    During this period there have been no deaths reported. For information on the number of assaults in Benefits Agency offices I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 13 March 2002, Official Report, column 1118W. Information is not available on the seriousness of any injuries received and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Child Poverty
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many families with at least one child below the age of five years were living in poverty in(a) 1997, (b) 1999 and (c) 2001, defined as those living in households with below 60 per cent. of median income. [45287]

    Malcolm Wicks
    Such information as is available is presented in the table.

    Number of families with one or more children under five years of age, living in households with below 60 per cent. of contemporary median household income

    million

    Before housing costs

    After housing costs

    1996–97

    0.7

    1.0

    1997–98

    0.6

    0.9

    1998–99

    0.6

    0.9

    1999–2000

    0.6

    0.9

    Notes:

    1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data set which is derived from the Family Resources Survey (FRS), which does not include Northern Ireland. The latest period for which data are available is the financial year 1999–2000.

    2. The estimates are sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that control for tenure, council tax band and a number of other variables. Estimates are subject to both sampling error and to variability in non-response.
    869W
    The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income (that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household).

    3. The estimates are presented on both a Before Housing Costs (BHC) and an After Housing Costs (AHC) basis in line with HBAI conventions.

    Source:

    FRS

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many children in(a) 1997, (b) 1999 and (c) 2001 were living in households with an income below 60 per cent. of median. [45292]

    Malcolm Wicks
    Such information as is available can be found in the Households Below Average Income 1994–95 to 1999–2000 National Statistics Press Release, a copy of which is available in the Library.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost was of administering family credit in its last full year. [46466]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The estimated cost of administering family credit in 1998–99 can be found in the "Social Security Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans 2000–01 to 2001–02", a copy of which is in the Library.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in what order existing CSA cases will be moved over to the new system once it is implemented. [47817]

    Malcolm Wicks
    I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 20 March 2002,Official Report, columns 315–16.

    Benefit Statistics
    Mark Tami
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many families in(a) Alyn and Deeside and (b) Delyn are claiming (i) child benefit and (ii) income support. [48919]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The information is in the table.

    Families in the parliamentary constituencies of Alyn and Deeside and Delyn receiving child benefit or income support—November 2001

    Alyn and Deeside

    Delyn

    Families receiving child benefit

    9,900

    8,600

    Families receiving income support

    1,500

    1,300

    >Notes:

    1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

    2. Figures for income support are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are subject to a degree of sampling variation.

    3. Families are defined as benefit recipients with one or more dependants.

    4. Families in receipt of income support will also be in receipt of child benefit.

    5. Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the Office for National Statistics Postcode Directory. Constituency boundaries are represented as at May 1997.
    870W
    Source:

    Child benefit computer system 100 per cent. six monthly statistical enquiry, November 2001; Income Support 5 per cent. quarterly statistical enquiry, November 2001

    Council Tax
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total value was of council tax benefit payments made in Scotland in each of the past three years. [48839]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The latest available information is in the table.

    Total value of council tax benefit payments in Scotland

    £million

    1996–97

    246

    1997–98

    287

    1998–99

    303

    >Note:

    Figures are rounded to the nearest £ million.

    Source:

    Pre-Budget report, September 2001.

    Child Benefit Centre (Tyne and Wear)
    Mr. Lazarowicz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of telephone calls to the Child Benefit Centre in Washington, Tyne and Wear were charged at(a) national and (b) local call rates in the last 12 months. [51787]

    Malcolm Wicks
    All telephone calls to the Child Benefit Centre over the last 12 months were charged at the national call rate.

    Automated Credit Transfer
    Brian Cotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the Government will save following the introduction of automated credit transfer for the delivery of benefits payments from 2003; and how much money the Government provide to post offices for administering benefits payments. [53130]

    Malcolm Wicks
    [holding answer 29 April 2002]: The move to payment directly into bank and building society accounts assures a safe, convenient, more modern and efficient way of paying benefits and pensions and will bring very substantial savings. Against this, we will incur some additional costs, including those to Post Office Ltd. for the provision of the new card account at the Post Office. The precise costs will depend on the number of card accounts.

    War Veterans
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what pensions and benefits are available for war veterans. [52473]

    Dr. Moonie
    I have been asked to reply.

    War veterans are entitled to claim the full range of benefits and pensions available to their civilian counterparts. In addition, war disablement pensions and armed forces pensions, in respect of ill health and retirement, are available to war veterans.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Central Office of Information
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time staff have been employed at the Central Office of Information in each year since 1997; and at what cost. [53260]

    Mr. Leslie
    Staffing details for Central Office of Information are set out in the table.

    Full time

    Part time

    Part time FTE1

    Total FTE1

    Cost £000

    1997

    325

    16

    10

    335

    9,600

    1998

    312

    18

    11

    323

    10,574

    1999

    328

    26

    17

    345

    11,686

    2000

    350

    20

    10

    360

    13,116

    2001

    380

    30

    20

    400

    14,817

    1 Full-time equivalents

    Public Appointments
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people since May 1997 have placed themselves on the register for public appointments maintained by the Cabinet Office; how many of these have received a public appointment since May 1997; and how many public appointments for which the above register is maintained have been made since May 1997. [52227]

    Mr. Leslie
    The Public Appointments Unit in the Cabinet Office is responsible for maintaining and developing the Government's central register of people who have expressed an interest in serving on a public body. The register is made available to Government Departments via the Government's secure intranet, and is a resource on which they may draw when carrying out the process of making a public appointment.

    While the Public Appointments Unit does not itself make any appointments, it is consulted about several hundred appointments each year, though not approached about every opportunity that arises. Between 1 May 1997 and 24 April 2002, 2,515 people have been added to the register. The other information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Miss Begg
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his responsibilities relating to senior and public appointments; and what progress has been made towards the Cabinet Office Diversity in Public Appointments policy and targets. [48754]
    872W
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
    Cabinet Office Ministers make appointments to the following bodies sponsored by the Cabinet Office and its agencies:

    Advisory Committee on Advertising

    Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

    Better Regulation Taskforce

    Civil Service Appeal Board

    Committee on Standards in Public Life

    Honours Scrutiny Committee

    House of Lords Appointments Commission

    Security Commission

    Security Vetting Appeals Board

    Senior Salaries Review Board

    Women's National Commission.

    Appointments to the Equal Opportunities Commission which is sponsored by the Cabinet Office are made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

    In addition the Minister for the Cabinet Office, in his capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, makes appointments to the Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside.

    "Public Bodies: Opening Up Public Appointments 2002–05" sets out for each Department specific targets for increasing diversity on the boards of the public bodies it sponsors and the action that will be taken to ensure that the targets are met and for monitoring progress. Copies of the publication are available in the Library of the House.

    Sponsorship
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 2002,Official Report, column 432W, on sponsorship, if he will place in the Library a copy of the internal sponsorship guidelines circulated to Departments in March 1999. [46611]

    Mr. Leslie
    I have placed copies of the guidelines circulated to Departments in March 1999 in the Libraries of the House. These guidelines have been superseded by "Guidance to Departments on Sponsorship of Government Activities", published in July 2000, copies of which are also available in the House Libraries.

    Ministerial Private Offices
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the running costs were of(a) his Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff, and (b) his Department in each year from May 1997 to the nearest date for which the information is available. [40982]

    Mr. Leslie
    The running costs of Ministers' private offices, the Cabinet Office parliamentary branch and the ministerial correspondence and support team for each financial year from May 1997 to 2001–02 are set out in the table.
    873W

    (a) Ministers' private offices, the Cabinet Office parliamentary branch and the ministerial correspondence and support team

    Total

    Financial year

    Number of private offices

    Paybill (£)

    Other running costs (£)

    Net running costs (£)

    May 1997 to 1998

    3

    814,076

    348,938

    1,173,014

    1998–99

    3

    933,122

    435,740

    1,368,862

    1999–2000

    4

    992,376

    473,258

    1,465,634

    2000–01

    4

    1,194,378

    682.675

    1,877,053

    2001–021

    6

    1,376,306

    797,130

    2,173,436

    1 Figures for 2001–02 are provisional and subject to audit

    (b) Departmental expenditure

    Information on the Cabinet Office's annual running costs is set out in its published appropriation accounts and resource accounts, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  HEALTH

    Meat Products
    Mr. Levitt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of spinal cord and other banned meat products have been detected in imported meat in the last three years. [46790]

    Yvette Cooper
    Since 1 January 2001 there have been 29 incidents involving the finding of specified risk material (SRM) in meat imported into the UK, of which 28 involved spinal cord. Prior to 1 October 2001, SRM cases were not recorded in a way that distinguished them from other breaches of import controls.

    Government records of breaches of import controls relate to all products of animal origin detained at border inspection posts, and do not distinguish meat and meat products from other products of animal origin. Since 1 January 2000 there have been a total of 1,205 such breaches. These cases involved a variety of failings, including the absence of the necessary health mark, or the general deterioration of the meat during unsatisfactory means of transportation. Records prior to 2000 are not available.

    The Food Standards Agency advises that the vast majority of consignments of meat imported into the UK fully meet the public health requirements for importation.

    Glivec
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Scottish First Minister about Scottish NICE advice about glivec. [50822]

    Ms Blears
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had any discussions with the Scottish First Minister about Scottish guidance on glivec.

    Care Home Workers
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures he proposes to take to overcome delays in processing applications for screening criminal records of care home workers; [53539]

    (2) what action his Department proposes to take to prevent the prosecution of care home managers as a result of the screening for criminal records of care home
    874W
    workers not being able to be completed due to the backlog of applications for screening; and if he will make a statement. [53541]

    Jacqui Smith
    This Department and the National Care Standards Commission are in close contact with the Home Office and the Criminal Records Bureau about the processing of applications. In order to improve the throughput of applications the bureau is currently recruiting additional staff and redeploying others over 100 in all. The bureau is also reviewing its application processes to streamline them where possible without compromising security, for example returning incorrectly completed forms to the registered body before the application is entered onto the system.

    The decision as to whether or not to prosecute a registered provider or registered manager of a care home for employing someone in the home without receiving a criminal records disclosure as required under regulation 19 of the Care Homes Regulations 2001, will be a matter for the National Care Standards Commission. We expect the commission to consider each case separately. In doing so it will need to determine what other checks the employer undertook before employing the worker and whether or not they would have been in breach of other regulations or conditions of registration relating to staff numbers, or the health and welfare of service users, if they did not fill the vacancy. Where a registered person employs someone and deliberately fails to require that person to apply for a disclosure from the bureau we would expect the commission to seek prosecution for breach of the relevant requirements.

    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many applications for screening for criminal records of care home workers have been(a) made, (b) completely processed and (c) awaiting processing, since the relevant regulations came into force; [53537]

    (2) how many applications have been made for the screening for criminal records of care home workers since the requirement came into force; [53538]

    (3) what the average time is that it has taken to process an application for the screening for criminal records of care home workers since the regulations came into force. [53540]

    Jacqui Smith
    The information about applications for disclosures for care home workers is not available in the form requested.

    NHS Dentistry
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government plan to publish their Options for Change: NHS Dentistry proposals; if he will make a statement. [53536]

    Ms Blears
    The Options for Change group, led by the Chief Dental Officer, and including key stakeholders, have submitted their draft recommendations to Ministers to restore national health service dentistry, building on the Government's strategy document "Modernising NHS Dentistry: Implementing the NHS Plan", published in September 2000.

    The ideas behind 'Options for Change' need practical testing and we announced on 25 April that we plan to set up demonstration sites across the country, with the

    875W
    assistance of the NHS Modernisation Agency. The sites will explore a variety of new methods for providing NHS dentistry, such as allowing primary care trusts to commission all NHS dental services and allowing dentists to choose to work in different ways at different times.

    We plan to publish a report on their work in due course.

    Blood Donations
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many blood donations there were in(a) 2001 and (b) 2000. [53326]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 29 April 2002]: The National Blood Service has reported that the number of blood donations from April 1999 to March 2000 were 2,928,443 units and from April 2000 to March 2001 2,910,104 units were donated.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 770W, on blood donations, what the Government are doing to encourage blood donations by those aged 17 to 20 years. [53325]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 29 April 2002]: The National Blood Service (NBS) is undertaking a number of activities to encourage blood donation by 17 to 20-year-olds. Blood donor sessions are taking place at sixth form colleges and universities. The NBS is also sending text messages to students about up and coming blood donor sessions, promoting blood donation at student fresher fayres and writing articles on blood donation for inclusion in student magazines.

    MMR Vaccinations
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department is taking to contact parents of children who have not received(a) the MMR vaccination and (b) appropriate single injections to urge them to have their children inoculated. [53270]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 29 April 2002]: In February the Department held a meeting of immunisation co-ordinators at which they were all asked to ensure the accuracy of their databases on MMR immunisations, especially for those children appearing not to have received this vaccination. A special initiative had already been undertaken in London districts to identify children who were apparently unimmunised. The 20 districts with the lowest MMR coverage have been asked specifically to concentrate efforts on identifying unimmunised
    876W
    children or those who have had incomplete courses of single vaccines, clarify their immunisation status, and provide information to their parents, if so wished.

    Smoking
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with central and eastern European Governments on sharing smoking cessation campaigns information. [53317]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 29 April 2002]: On 18 and 19 February 2002, I attended the World Health Organisation's (WHO) ministerial conference on a tobacco-free Europe in Warsaw. I met with representatives from a number of central and eastern European Governments and discussed smoking-related issues, including cessation. The Department also works closely with the European region of the WHO to share information about activities on smoking cessation.

    Hepatitis C
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what national guidance his Department has issued to combat the hepatitis C virus. [53273]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 29 April 2002]: The Department has issued the following publications relevant to hepatitis C1Protection against Blood-borne Infections in the Workplace: HIV and hepatitis (Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogen—1995)
    Hepatitis C and Blood Transfusion Look back (1995)
    Purchasing Effective Treatment and care for Drug Misusers (1997)
    Guidelines for Clinical Health Care Workers: Protection against Blood-borne Viruses (1998)
    Guidance on the Risk and Management of Occupational Exposure to hepatitis C (Public Health Laboratory Service 1999)
    Drug Misuse and Dependence—Guidelines on Clinical Management (1999)
    Guidelines on the Use of Ribavirin and Interferon alpha for hepatitis C (National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2000)
    Hepatitis C Factsheet (Health Promotion England, 2000)
    Guidance on the Microbiological Safety of Human Organs, Tissues and Cells used in Transplantation (2000)
    Hepatitis C—Guidance for Those Working with Drug Users (2001)
    National Specialised Services Definitions Set (1 Edition): Specialised Services for Hepatology, Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery (Adult) (2001)
    Health Advice for Travellers (2002)
    Hepatitis C—Essential Information for Professionals (2002)
    1 Where appropriate, the most recent editions of publications are listed.

  TREASURY

    Income Tax
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average income tax paid per household was in each of the last four years in(a) current and (b) 1997 prices. [26227]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Estimates of the average income tax liability per household in the UK over the past four tax years are shown in the table.

    Income tax paid by UK households

    Tax- year

    Average income tax liabilities (£)

    Average income tax at 1997 prices1 (£)

    Average income tax as a percentage of gross household income

    1997–98

    3,300

    3,300

    15.1

    1998–99

    3,600

    3,500

    15.1

    1999–2000

    3,750

    3,550

    15.0

    2000–01

    3,950

    3,650

    15.1

    1 Using the GDP deflator at market prices

    These figures have been calculated using estimates of income tax liabilities based on the Survey of Personal Incomes, and estimates of the number of households based on the Labour Force Survey. Gross household income estimates are taken from Family Spending.

    Mr. Salter
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much more in income tax the average pensioner would pay if all the spending increases announced in the 2002 Budget were funded from income tax rather than national insurance contributions; [53609]

    (2) by how much income tax would have to rise to fund the 2002 Budget increases for the NHS and other public services if income tax were used instead of the increases in national insurance. [53607]

    Dawn Primarolo
    I refer my hon. Friend to table A.1 in the Financial Statement and Budget Report, April 2002, for the yield from additional national insurance contributions. The direct effects of illustrative changes in income tax are given in table 4 of the "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" published in November 2001, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House. This table will be updated in the statistics area of the Inland Revenue website on 31 May. The amount of income tax that any individual would pay depends upon how the additional income tax is levied.

    Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 5 February 2002,Official Report, column 851W, what the value was of the 18 penalties imposed as a result of allegations of WFTC/DPTC fraud made via the anti-fraud hotline; what the value was of the 530 recoveries; if the two prosecutions resulted in convictions and what the sentence received in each case was; and what the cost is of (a) the benefits anti-fraud hotline and (b) the childminder's hotline in 2001–02. [37583]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The NAO report into the Inland Revenue's accounts for 2000–01 confirms that inquiries were thoroughly appropriately followed up. Of the cases 878W
    referred to in my answer of 5 February, 2002, Official Report, column 851, penalties of around £10,000 were imposed in the 18 cases which resulted from allegations to the national benefit fraud hotline about working families tax credit (WFTC) and disabled persons tax credit (DPTC) applicants. In addition, approximately £743,000 of tax credits is recoverable in relation to the 530 cases. Both of the prosecutions referred to resulted in convictions. The individuals convicted were given a two-year conditional discharge and 50 hours community service respectively.

    Based on figures to date for 2001–02, the Department for Work and Pensions estimates the total annual cost of running the national benefit fraud hotline at £816,000 and the estimated annual cost to running the childminder's hotline for WFTC and DPTC applications during 2001–02 at around £1,000.

    Mr. Roy
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of fraud have been exposed during the past 12 months in relation to the child care tax credit system. [46108]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The child care tax credit is only one component of both working families' and disabled person's tax credits (WFTC and DPTC). In the 12 months to 31 March 2002 almost 8,000 WFTC or DPTC awards were found to be non-compliant but it is not possible to say how many of these included non-compliance in relation to child care charges.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) investigations, (b) penalties and (c) prosecutions have been instituted since September 2001 in respect of working families tax credit fraud. [46898]

    Dawn Primarolo
    In the period from 1 October 2001 to 31 March 2002 there have been(a) in the region of 11,000 investigations opened, (b) 310 penalties applied, and (c) 26 prosecutions instigated.

    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason(a) a widow's pension is and (b) maintenance payments are not taken into account in assessing eligibility for working families tax credit. [53511]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The fact that widow's pension is taken into account in tax credits and maintenance payments are not, aligns the treatment with what happens in the rest of the tax system. The maintenance disregard also makes a significant contribution to tackling child poverty.

    Ministerial Private Offices
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the running costs were of(a) his Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff and (b) his Department in each year from May 1997 to the nearest date for which the information is available. [40980]

    Ruth Kelly
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 808W.

    Staff Numbers
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff have been employed by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42471]
    879W
    Ruth Kelly
    The following table details the full-time equivalent (FTE) staff in post figures for each of the last 10 years to April 2001.

    Numbers of staff employed in each of the last 10 years

    FTE

    2001

    970

    2000

    870

    1999

    926

    1998

    893

    1997

    888

    1996

    958

    1995

    1,127

    1994

    1,400

    1993

    1,946

    1992

    2,846

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times special advisers have accompanied Ministers on overseas visits in each of the last five years; which countries were visited; and what the total cost of each individual visit was. [47141]

    Ruth Kelly
    [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Between 1 April 2001 to date, special advisers in the Treasury have travelled overseas on three occasions at an average cost of £5,800. In each case a special adviser has accompanied the Chancellor to IMF and G20 meetings in the USA and Canada and associated events from 27 April 2001 to 1 May 2001, 16 to 19 November 2001 and from 19 to 22 April 2002. Information for the period 2 May 1997 to 31 March 2001 is already in the public domain. All travel by special advisers is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

    Relocation
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to relocate executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies under the remit of his Department to Scotland. [47933]

    Ruth Kelly
    [holding answer 10 April 2002]: There are not currently any plans to relocate executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies under the remit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Scotland.

    Tax Evasion
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures have been introduced since 1997 to reduce tax evasion by the use of offshore accounts. [49680]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The Inland Revenue has a continuing commitment to detect and counter tax evasion. Resources are deployed with an emphasis on areas of high risk and the Inland Revenue's Special Compliance Office deals specifically with evasion involving offshore accounts.

    The Finance Act 2000 introduced a package of measures to improve the UK's ability to exchange tax information with other countries. Effective exchange of information is a key tool in reducing tax evasion by the use of offshore accounts.
    880W
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated cost of tax evasion was in each of the last 10 years. [49082]

    Dawn Primarolo
    No such figures are available. There is no generally accepted method of producing a measure sufficiently reliable to be of value.

    The Inland Revenue has a continuing programme of counter-evasion work which covers all parts of the United Kingdom. Resources are deployed to detect evasion across the tax system with an emphasis on areas of high tax risk.

    Taxation
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many forward contracts have been agreed by the Inland Revenue to allow taxpayers to negotiate a fixed regular payment of tax in place of the submission of an annual return in each year from 1997 to date; how many such agreements are in place; when such an agreement was first made; under what circumstances such agreements are made; and what the annual income is to the Inland Revenue from such agreements; [49292]

    (2) how many UK taxpayers who make fixed regular payment in lieu of the submission of an annual return enjoy non-domicile status. [49293]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 15 April 2002]: The Inland Revenue has made a small number of such agreements, entered into at various dates since 1988, some involving taxpayers domiciled outside the United Kingdom. Typically, the arrangements agree a practical basis for taxing future income and gains where there would otherwise be particular difficulties in establishing an exact figure.

    Three agreements involving fixed regular payments were made since the start of 1997, but none of these is now considered current. Two have expired. The Inland Revenue is contending in court proceedings that the third is invalid.

    Better Quality Services Initiative
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the services of his Department have not been reviewed under the Better Quality Services Initiative; and when they will be reviewed. [50311]

    Ruth Kelly
    The Better Quality Services (BQS) programme was launched in 1998 and adopted by the Cabinet Office in the "Modernising Government" White Paper of 1999 as a means of delivering continuous improvements in the quality and effectiveness of Government activities and services. It requires all Government Departments to review every activity and service over a five-year period starting in October 1999. The scheme covers all activities in Departments, agencies and executive non-departmental public bodies, and is similar in remit to the Best Value programme in local government.

    HM Treasury does not provide services direct to the public however; under the umbrella of the Better Quality Services programme we have reviewed some 40 per cent. of our activities. By the end of 2004, efficiency reviews

    881W
    will have been undertaken within all Treasury Directorates, using appropriate tools such as the European Foundation for Quality Management's Excellence Model.

    Complaints
    Mr. Breed
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints were registered against his Department in(a) 1990 to 1996 and (b) 1997 to 2002; how many are current; and what proportion were (i) taken up and (ii) upheld by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in those periods. [51222]

    Ruth Kelly
    [holding answer 19 April 2002]: Complaints handling is one of the areas covered by the Six Service Standards for central Government. Standard Five states that each central Government Department and agency "should have a complaints procedure or procedures for services it provides, publicise it, including on the Internet, and send the customer information if they ask". Information about the Treasury's complaints procedures is on the Treasury's website at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/About/ about_complaints.cfm

    The Cabinet Office guidance "How to Deal with Complaints" advises Departments and agencies that they should develop a system to record all complaints about service delivery and policy. The Treasury has yet to do this so the information requested is not collected centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Information on the numbers of complaints taken up and upheld by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is contained in the parliamentary ombudsman's annual reports covering the periods specified. Copies of the annual reports are available in the Library of the House and for the reports from 1997–98 on the parliamentary ombudsman's website at www.ombudsman.org.uk/pca/par01/index.htm

    During 2001–02 the Treasury received two new statutory statements of complaint from the parliamentary ombudsman and have responded to both which have been resolved. Since 1 April 2002 the Treasury has received no new statutory statements of complaint.

    The Treasury has one case that is current.

    Budget Red Book
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to table 4.4 on page 79 of the 2002 Budget Red Book, if he will provide figures for each column in respect of marginal deduction rates(a) over 50 per cent. and (b) over 40 per cent. [51656]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 22 April 2002]: The table shows estimates of the number of families facing marginal deduction rates (MDRs) in excess of 40 per cent.

    Number of households facing MDRs of 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. (cumulative)

    Marginal deduction rate

    Before Budget 1998

    2002–03 system of tax and benefits

    After introduction of NTCs

    Over 100 per cent.

    5,000

    0

    0

    Over 90 per cent.

    130,000

    45,000

    45,000

    Over 80 per cent.

    300,000

    210,000

    200,000

    Over 70 per cent.

    740,000

    255,000

    260,000

    Over 60 per cent.

    760,000

    940,000

    1,450,000

    Over 50 per cent.

    760,000

    1,140,000

    1,600,000

    882W

    Number of households facing MDRs of 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. (cumulative)

    Marginal deduction rate

    Before Budget 1998

    2002–03 system of tax and benefits

    After introduction of NTCs

    Over 40 per cent.

    800,000

    1,180,000

    1,775,000

    This analysis does not take into account the way in which the new tax credits will respond to rises in income, described in detail in "The Child and Working Tax Credit". The new tax credits respond only to rises in income in the current year of more than £2,500, disregarding the first £2,500 of any rise. This means that recipients will not see their tax credits reduced as soon as their income rises, so reducing the effective marginal deduction in any one year. The figures in the table, which cover the number of households in receipt of either income related benefits or the working families tax credit (WFTC) or new tax credits from April 2003, where at least one person works 16 hours or more, include the effects of income tax and national insurance contributions, and the withdrawal of housing benefit and council tax benefit.

    The effect of tax and benefit changes introduced since Budget 1998, including the WFTC, reduced the number of households facing MDRs in excess of 70 per cent. by around half a million. As WFTC is more generous than the family credit that it replaced, more households benefit from it, hence the larger numbers facing MDRs over 40 and 50 per cent. in 2002–03.

    Building on the success of WFTC, the Government will be introducing a new system of tax credits from April 2003. As the new tax credits will be more generous and inclusive than the current system of support, more households will be eligible, and those currently eligible will gain more, hence a greater number will face MDRs over 40 and 50 per cent. from 2003–04.

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of companies that will gain in 2002–03 from the exemption from corporation tax of companies with taxable profits of less than £10,000; and what the cost to public funds will be. [52376]

    Dawn Primarolo
    150,000 companies with profits of £10,000 or less and with total corporation tax liabilities of £50 million in 2002–03 under a 10 per cent. starting rate of CT will have no liability as a result of the new zero rate band. Further information about changes to the corporation tax rates for small companies is contained in the Budget 2002 report.

    Wanless Report Team
    Mr. Maples
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of each member of the team listed in the Wanless report on the Future of the NHS, whether they are Treasury officials; and of those that are(a) what grade they hold and (b) what their individual functions in the Treasury are. [52234]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    The following members of the Health Trends Review team are Treasury officials: Martin Beck (Range D); Jonathan Black (Range E), Ilona Blue
    883W
    (Range E), Simon Brindle (Range E), Anita Charlesworth (Range F), Marian Fairweather (Range B), Duncan Innes (Range E) and Ian Walker (Range F). Most of these officials worked exclusively for the Health Trends Review team, supporting Derek Wanless in his review of the long-term trends affecting the UK health service. Two also worked part of the time for the Treasury's Productivity and Public Service Delivery Analysis teams.

    Recruitment
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many net additional staff his Department has recruited in each month since June 2001 at(a) executive officer level and (b) administrative level. [52438]

    Ruth Kelly
    The information for HM Treasury is shown in the table:

    Excutive officer level

    Administrative level

    Month/ type of staff

    Headcount

    FTE

    Headcount

    FTE

    June 2001

    Permanent

    0

    0

    4

    4

    Casual

    1

    1

    5

    5

    FTA

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Loan in

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Total

    1

    1

    9

    9

    July 2001

    Permanent

    1

    1

    2

    2

    Casual

    1

    1

    8

    8

    FTA

    1

    1

    0

    0

    Loan in

    1

    1

    0

    0

    Total

    4

    4

    10

    10

    August 2001

    Permanent

    3

    3

    2

    2

    Casual

    -1

    -1

    -2

    -2

    FTA

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Loan in

    0

    0

    1

    1

    Total

    2

    2

    1

    1

    September 2001

    Permanent

    1

    1

    5

    5

    Casual

    -1

    -1

    -8

    -8

    FTA

    1

    1

    5

    5

    Loan in

    0

    0

    1

    1

    Total

    1

    1

    3

    3

    October 2001

    Permanent

    1

    1

    0

    0

    Casual

    1

    1

    0

    0

    FTA

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Loan in

    0

    0

    1

    1

    Total

    2

    2

    1

    1

    November 2001

    Permanent

    0

    0

    10

    9.8

    Casual

    1

    1

    0

    0

    FTA

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Loan in

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Total

    1

    1

    10

    9.8

    December 2001

    Permanent

    0

    0

    7

    7

    Casual

    -1

    -1

    0

    0

    884W

    Excutive officer level

    Administrative level

    Month/ type of staff

    Headcount

    FTE

    Headcount

    FTE

    FTA

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Loan in

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Total

    -1

    -1

    7

    7

    January 2002

    Permanent

    1

    1

    8

    7.4

    Casual

    -1

    -1

    -1

    -1

    FTA

    0

    0

    -1

    -1

    Loan in

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Total

    0

    0

    6

    5.4

    February 2002

    Permanent

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Casual

    0

    0

    2

    2

    FTA

    0

    0

    1

    1

    Loan in

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Total

    0

    0

    3

    3

    March 2002

    Permanent

    2

    2

    5

    5

    Casual

    0

    0

    -1

    -1

    FTA

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Loan in

    1

    1

    2

    2

    Total

    3

    3

    6

    6

    Source:

    HM Treasury's Personnel Database

    Terrorist Suspects
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to freeze the assets of a person whose name has been communicated to him consequent on the G7 summit; and if he will make a statement. [53082]

    Ruth Kelly
    The individuals named at the G7 summit have been listed by the United Nations Security Council under resolution 1390, which imposes sanctions against the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and their associates. In line with our international obligations the Government instructed the Bank of England to issue an assets freeze on these individuals and organisations.

    Climate Change Levy
    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 23 April 2002,Official Report, columns 127–28W, what percentage of revenue raised by the climate change levy in 2001–02 has been (a) recycled to business through a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions and (b) funds targeted programmes of support measures for business investing in energy-saving technologies and practices; and if he will make a statement. [53054]

    Mr. Boateng
    As set out in the answer of 23 April 2002,Official Report, columns 127–28W, climate change levy receipts for the year 2001–02 were £551 million. The 0.3 percentage point reduction in employers' national insurance contributions was worth approximately £1 billion in 2001–02. The scheme of enhanced capital allowances was expected to cost £70 million in 2001–02 and an additional £50 million was allocated to support for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

    Data Protection Act
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library copies of each version of the internal guidance which have been drawn up by his Department since 1 January 1999 to assist staff in his Department to answer subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 1998. [53388]

    Ruth Kelly
    The internal guidance to the Data Protection Act 1998 that is used to assist staff in answering subject access requests is being placed in the Library.

    Departmental Underspends
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much departmental underspend was carried over from financial years(a) 2000–01 to 2001–02 and (b) 2001–02 to 2002–03 (i) in total and (ii) in the health budget. [53591]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    Table 6 of "Public Expenditure 2000–01—Provisional Outturn" (CM 5243) shows details of departmental entitlements to carry forward underspends from 2000–01 into 2001–02. The individual entitlements may also include an element of underspending from earlier years.

    Details of the carry forward of 2001–02 underspends into 2002–03 are not available at present but will be announced before the summer recess.

    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to allow underspend to be carried forward to Departments other than the initial recipient Department. [53586]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    The End Year Flexibility (EYF) scheme, introduced with effect from 1 April 1999, allows Departments to carry forward their departmental expenditure limits (DEL) underspends (normally less the value of DEL Reserve claims agreed during the year) from one year to the next. There are no plans to amend the scheme to allow the reallocation of one Department's underspending to another.

    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the underspends were in the financial year 2001–02; for the Departments of(a) Health, (b) Education and Skills, (c) Defence, (d) Home and (e) Transport, Local Government and the Regions. [53592]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    Table C14 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" shows estimated outturn by Department. Details of Department's final plans and provisional outturn figures for 2001–02 will be published before the summer recess.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage share of expenditure from the national insurance fund was allocated to(a) the NHS, (b) each category of contributory benefit expenditure and (c) pension rebates in each year since 1996–97; and what the estimate is for 2001–02. [53475]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The information requested is provided in the national insurance fund accounts for 1996–97 (HC465), 1997–98 (HC130), 1998–99 (HC146), 1999–2000 (HC446) and for 2000–01 and 2001–02 in the 886W
    report by the Government Actuary on the drafts of the Social Security Up-rating Order 2002 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2002 (CM5383).

    Tax Credits
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer following his account of classification of personal tax credits on page 216 of the Budget Red Book, how much of the expenditure on the WFTC in the latest year for which figures are available is less than equal to the tax liability of the household; how much expenditure on credits is exceeding liability; and what estimates he has made of his breakdown for the(a) child tax credit and (b) workers tax credit. [53648]

    Dawn Primarolo
    For 2001–02, around 12 per cent. of the working families tax credit scores as negative tax.

    For the working tax credit (WTC) and child tax credit (CTC), the latest available estimates are that about 10–11 per cent. of the new tax credits will score as negative tax in 2004–05 and later years. The proportion will be slightly higher, at about 13.5 per cent., in 2003–04. As part of the transitional arrangements child allowance payments (at enhanced CTC rates) to income support and jobseeker's allowance recipients will still count as social security benefits in the first year of the new credits, and are not included in the tax credit total until 2004–05. As these recipients are likely to have much lower income tax liabilities than other WTC and CTC recipients, the proportion scoring as tax falls in 2004–05.

    Separate figures for WTC and CTC are not available.

    Stamp Duty
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many properties per annum he expects to benefit over the next three years from the exemptions from stamp duty for properties in disadvantaged areas listed in line 2 of Table A2.1 of the Financial Statement and Budget report. [53406]

    Ruth Kelly
    The number of properties per annum benefiting over the next three years from the current stamp duty exemption listed in Table A2.1 of the FSBR is estimated at around 40,000. At present the exemption applies to property transactions in designated wards where the consideration does not exceed £150,000. The Government intend to abolish stamp duty for all non-residential property transactions in these wards, subject to state aid approval.

    Lung Cancer
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the lung cancer mortality rates were in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [53532]

    Ruth Kelly
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
    887W
    Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Ian Gibson, dated 30 April 2002:
    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question concerning lung cancer mortality rates for each of the last five years for which figures are available. (53532) I am replying in his absence.
    The figures requested are given in the table below:

    Mortality rates1 for malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus or lung2, England and Wales, 1996–20003

    Rate per 100,000

    Calendar year

    Males

    Females

    1996

    681

    292

    1997

    649

    285

    1998

    641

    291

    1999

    609

    289

    2000

    590

    285

    1 Directly age-standardised to the European Standards Population.

    2 Selected using code 162 from the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision.

    3 Data are for occurrences of death per calendar year.

    Source:

    Office for National Statistics, 'Mortality Statistics: Cause, Review of the Registrar General on deaths by cause, sex and age, in England and Wales 2000.' Series DH2, Number 27. The Stationery Office (London: 2001).

    Emigration
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many UK citizens emigrated in each of the last five years. [53136]

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

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 30 April 2002:
    888W
    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question on emigration of UK citizens. (53136)
    The British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1' January 1983, replaced citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, with British citizenship, British Overseas citizenship, and British Dependent Territories citizenship. Therefore, the attached table shows outward international migration by British citizens during the last five years from 1996 to 2000.

    Total international migration: British citizens emigrating 1996 to 2000, United Kingdom

    thousands

    British citizens

    1996

    142.8

    1997

    134.5

    1998

    114.6

    1999

    126.5

    2000

    152.3

    >Note:

    Figures in these tables represent total international migration combining data from the International Passenger Survey, Home Office data on asylum seekers, and people who entered the UK as short-term visitors but were subsequently granted an extension of stay for a year or longer for other reasons, and estimates of migration between the UK and the Irish Republic.

    Pornographic Films
    Mr. Laws
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether film tax relief has been extended to pornographic films made in the United Kingdom since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [53435]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Three of the four film tax reliefs are used for films, the master copy, tape or disc of which has been certified by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport as a British qualifying film. The changes announced in the Budget would restrict the reliefs to British qualifying films made for theatrical exhibition in the commercial cinema. The fourth relief is used for big budget international productions.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Act,

Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act,

National Heritage Act,

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act,

Greenham and Crookham Commons Act.

Chinook ZD576
Lord Chalfontasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect to provide a response to the report of the Select Committee on the Chinook ZD576 accident before the Summer Recess.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the Government have said that they intend to respond to the Select Committee's report, which was published on 5th February 2002, before the six months allowed for responses to such reports have elapsed. That remains our intention. Moreover, I hope that it will be possible to publish our reply and debate the issue in your Lordships' House before the Summer Recess.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. However, in the light of the fact that correspondents' letters addressed to the Government on this matter are being answered by the Air Staff secretariat, can he give the House an assurance that, before the response arrives in the House, Ministers, and not only officials, will have read the Select Committee's report and that they will not simply be relying on an Air Staff briefing?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that all Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have read the Select Committee's report. But that will not preclude us from listening to the advice of our officials before final decisions are taken. I know that the noble Lord will agree that that is the best way to proceed, not least because of the time that he spent as a distinguished Minister in the MoD some years ago.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, does the Minister agree that staff at Boscombe Down reported to the MoD that they could not recommend controller aircraft release
682
for the Chinook Mk2 owing to the unquantifiable risk associated with the unverifiable nature of the FADEC software, and does he agree that they recommended that it be rewritten? Can the Minister say now, or in the future response to which he has just referred, whether the software has been rewritten and independently verified and who authorised the return of those aircraft to operational service against the advice of Boscombe Down?
Lord Bach: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, whose questions I always listen to with enormous interest, the answer to his question will be very much a matter for this House when we come to debate the report. I am conscious that today the Question is about the timetable. This Question should not be an excuse for a dress rehearsal for a debate that the House will have.

Deaf-blind Children
2.39 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many deaf-blind children there are in the United Kingdom, what educational provision is made for them and what is the estimated cost of such provision.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the Government do not collect information about numbers of pupils with special educational needs categorised by disability or learning difficulty. Sense, the National Deafblind and Rubella Association, estimates that about 3.1 in 10,000 children are deaf-blind. Responsibility for making provision for deaf-blind children rests in the first instance with local education authorities and schools. The type and cost of provision will depend on each child's individual needs.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, my noble friend's Answer is a little disappointing. On a serious issue such as this, I should have thought that it was absolutely basic to have statistics on what is happening. Does my noble friend agree that dealing with deaf-blind children is probably the most difficult problem faced by parents and carers? Little research appears to have been carried out on this handicap. Can my noble friend comment on that and, in particular, on the education of deaf-blind children? Finally, is my noble friend aware of the valuable work being done by interveners who visit children in their own homes? Can she say whether any government assistance is available for that work?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend was disappointed. I did try to provide some figures. If it would assist the House, I can translate those into an estimation by Sense that there are 4,200 children under the age of 18 in the UK out of

683
a population of approximately 23,000 people in the UK who are deaf-blind. According to information collected by the Welsh Assembly, as of January 2001 there were 60 pupils with statements of SEN whose main need arose from a hearing and visual impairment. Scotland is also collecting information:0.4 per cent of children with a record of need in primary schools and 0.1 per cent in secondary schools had dual sensory impairment. I hope that that reassures my noble friend that I do, in fact, have information.
I also have information about reports which have been recently published by Sense. One is entitled, Breaking Out; another is entitled, Reach Out. We are looking very carefully at those reports, which focus on early intervention for children who are deaf-blind. We are working in that area and opening up the community for deaf-blind children and young people, particularly in after-school and out-of-school activities. We are considering those issues and take them very seriously.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, assuming that the main means of communication of deaf-blind children is touch signals, are there enough teachers in this specialisation or in any satisfactory alternative means? Are enough teachers being trained?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, teachers of deaf-blind and deaf or blind pupils must acquire an additional qualification. That is a mandatory qualification. The Teacher Training Agency has been reviewing that and has drawn up new specifications against which training providers can bid. Currently, eight institutions offer the mandatory qualification provision; two of them deal with deaf-blind children: Whitefield School at Kingston University and the University of Birmingham.
In addition, we should ensure that those who work in a support capacity with teachers are able to have training on special educational needs and the needs of children. The noble Lord makes an important point: such children have particular difficulties. My noble friend referred to the role of interveners, which is a crucial part of enabling them to communicate.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this disability demonstrates the inadequacy—I must take some responsibility—of lumping all children with disabilities together under the category of children with special needs? Does she agree that some children's disabilities are so profound that they require "special" special provision and that that group of children stands out as the most difficult to be put together with other children with less severe disabilities?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. We believe that the time has come to obtain information about the different special educational needs of the different categories of children in our schools, so that we can
684
adjust the provision and ensure that it is appropriate and adequate. Currently, we are working with officials from the Department of Health to ensure that we have similar categorisation for reasons that I am sure will be clear to your Lordships.
It is true that for some children being educated in a mainstream school is inappropriate as we are not thereby able to fulfil their needs. That is why special schools remain an important part of educational provision and why we are working closely with special schools to ensure that in the future their role is well understood.
Noble Lords will perhaps not be surprised that the number of children in special schools remains the same, but the kinds of disability or special educational needs that the children have are increasingly complex. Therefore, teaching and educational provision of the highest order are required. It is also important that those children who can be educated and wish to be educated in mainstream schooling are allowed to do so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, how can the Government say, on the one hand, that services for children with special educational needs are adequate but, on the other hand, admit that they do not have the specific information about the particular special educational needs of different categories of children?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the important fact, as the noble Baroness is aware, is that we have schools that are working closely with these children. In the main, we delegate the money to the schools: £1.9 billion for special educational needs in 2001–02. We recognise that we have in our teaching profession real expertise of working with children with special educational needs which we want to ensure is shared. We have to be more sophisticated as we develop our inclusion agenda. That is precisely what we shall do.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that there is active communication between social services departments and education authorities while a child is in school and once he or she leaves school? We tend to ignore the adult world when discussing children with special difficulties. That is particularly true of a group of children whose entire communication with the rest of society depends on properly trained people.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. We need to ensure that there is joined-up thinking of the best kind. The booklet produced by Sense, Breaking Out, has much to say about how services can link together to ensure that children, young people and adults are provided for. In my discussions with special schools, particularly those dealing with visual impairment, we have been

685
considering the transition for such young people into adult life. We have considered the role that the specialist services can play in working closely with them—Connexions advisers and the special schools—so that we can ensure that they make the transition as successfully as possible.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 deaf-blind children can receive a special assessment and a package of assistance. According to a survey by Sense, the organisation that deals with deaf-blind persons, as my noble friend will know, many children and families do not receive that help. Will the Minister urge local authorities to undertake more work in that regard? If she does not have the figures with her, will she write to me saying how many local authorities provide such assistance?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord refers to Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. That is carefully monitored by the Social Services Inspectorate and, therefore, is the responsibility of the Department of Health. There is statutory guidance of which local authorities are required to take note. They need good reason not to, and it would be subject to judicial review. The Social Services Inspectorate is now monitoring carefully. I shall pass that request for information to the Department of Health for reply.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, are there any shortages of specialist teachers who teach deaf and blind people? If so, what are the numbers?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not have that precise information. I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord. We believe that there is adequate provision, but I shall notify him if that is incorrect.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, do the remaining special schools act as centres of expertise for the rest of the educational needs of children and is it possible for a child with a disability, but particularly with the serious kind of disability mentioned in the Question, to start in one kind of school and move into another as he or she progresses?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. We look to our specialist schools to become centres of excellence. Some of them are being co-located with mainstream schools, which will enable the students, even if they have complex disabilities or special needs, to interact with children in the mainstream sector to the benefit of the children in both settings. A number of pupils are registered in both settings and are able to move between them. Children with a particular disability—I use deafness as an example—may spend two days a week with a signer or an appropriate carer in a mainstream setting. That is to be welcomed and encouraged.

Taxation
2.50 p.m.
The Earl of Northeskasked Her Majesty's Government:
What changes in the burden of taxation have occurred since 1997.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, estimates of net taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of GDP are available in Tables C10 and C23 of Budget 2002.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that brief Answer. But are the Government sanguine that one change that has occurred is that the poorest 10 per cent of people now pay a record rate of between 50 and 63 per cent of their income in tax?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the changes that have taken place over the past five years in the tax paid by the different deciles of the population in terms of income are very much to the credit of this Government. This is the first period of five years, or any comparable period, in which the net income of the poorest 20 per cent of the population has increased by as much as the net income of the top 20 per cent; in other words, in which the differentials have not increased.
Lord Newby: My Lords, the whole House will be fascinated by that answer. Will the Minister accept that the burden of taxation paid by the bottom 10 or 20 per cent of the population has risen, and risen more quickly than that of the top 10 or 20 per cent of the population, during the lifetime of this Government? Will he also accept that the principal reason for that is that the Government ruled out at the start the fairest form of taxation—if an increase in taxation had to be made—namely, income tax?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats are following in Conservative footsteps by being more interested in what they call "tax burdens" than in the real income which results from the income and taxes. I should have thought it was more appropriate for them to look at the real prosperity of this country and at the way in which the poor have been lifted out of poverty. The direct tax burden on a family on average earnings with two children this year will be 19.9 per cent lower than it was in 1997 or in any previous year since 1979.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, perhaps I may refer the Minister to page 12 of the Red Book, where it says that a person on 50 per cent of median earnings—about 10,700 a year—will pay an additional£1.65 a week in tax. Why are the Government raising the tax paid by people who are below their own official poverty line?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, produced a very interesting

687
pamphlet called something like, Why should the poor pay taxes?, which I read with very great interest. The noble Lord's solution of course would be to increase the tax threshold, the effects of which would be to make poor people a little better off but rich people very much better off. I doubt that that would recommend itself to the people of this country.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that the Liberal Democrat emphasis on direct taxation is that it is levied on the people who can afford to pay, whereas indirect taxation applies equally to the poor and the rich?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was not my criticism of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. My concern was that he was interested in the concept of a tax burden—in other words, the percentage—rather than in the real earnings after tax of poorer people in this country. It is that on which this Government pride themselves.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the current and anticipated burden of taxation will encourage or discourage economic growth in this country, which is much needed by all classes?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have made it clear in the projections in the Red Book that over the next few years there will indeed be an increase in what is called the "tax burden". But that will be in order to compensate for so many years of neglect of our public services. It is because of the neglect by the party opposite of our public services that we have to do this. The people of this country understand that and welcome it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does the Minister not know that on the night following each successive Budget, the City has been awash with champagne? Does he not accept that the fastest growing widening of income differentials in recorded time has meant an exacerbation of the problems of housing exclusion, of public sector recruitment and of social resentment? Does he deny that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not move in the same City circles as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Nobody offered me any of the champagne. If he has any to spare, perhaps he will share it with the poorer people of this country who have benefited by this Government's policies. We need only to look at the results of the policies of this Government in terms of direct taxation since 1997. As a result of the personal tax and benefit measures introduced since that time, on average, by October 2003, households will be £740 a year better off; families with children will be £1,200 a year better off; pensioner households will be £1,150 a year better off. I think we can put up with a bit of champagne swilling for that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I may redirect the Minister's attention to the poorest 20 per cent, about
688
whom the noble Lord, Lord Newby, addressed a question and to which the Minister replied by commenting on the condition of the average taxpayer. I remind him that my noble friend Lord Saatchi referred him to people on below average earnings, and he gave an answer based on my noble friend's pamphlet. Perhaps I may ask again whether people in the lowest 20 per cent of earnings are now paying more in tax than they were last year.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is the fact—this was my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Newby—that the people in the poorest 20 per cent of this country are as much better off under this Government as the people in the top 20 per cent. It is the effect of the tax and credit structure that is more important than theoretical argument about the tax burden. That is the point I was trying to make by reference to the poorest 20 per cent of the population.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to answer my noble friend's question? Are the poorest 20 per cent of people worse off now than they were 12 months ago?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was not the question. But the answer is no.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, can the Minister say why the Government have been so inconsistent in their tax policy? On the one hand they cut corporation tax and raised even more revenue, and on the other they increased direct taxation like the national insurance upper earnings limit by 28 per cent. Would it not be better to cut direct taxation as well as corporation tax?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an argument that might not result in champagne swilling around the City! The question I was being asked by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, related to the effect on our economic prosperity. One element that is widely recognised as being contributory to our economic prosperity is the extent to which we have been able to cut corporation tax—after all, it is a tax on success rather than a payroll tax: it is a profit tax—and particularly the ways in which we have been able to encourage small businesses.

Child Benefit
3.59 p.m.
Baroness Buscombeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the details of the plan proposed by the Prime Minister to remove child benefit from the parents of teenage offenders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, if parents permit their children to truant, then we know that those children are far more likely to drift into crime. That is both disastrous

689
for them and for their local community. It is therefore essential that we explore all options to stop that happening, including the recent ideas.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her somewhat brief reply. But is that plan practical? For example, what happens to the innocent brothers and sisters within a family which has a child who is out of control? What about all the parents who do everything in their power to try to prevent the child from being unruly? Does the Minister accept that making poor children poorer is not the answer? That is not a substitute for a real, long-term and cohesive strategy to cut youth crime.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I certainly agree with the last point made by the noble Baroness, but the Government indeed have a consistent, coherent strategy to cut youth crime. That includes everything from reducing the number of days for which young people have to wait between arrest. and sentencing to extra powers in the 10 areas most affected by street robbery. Since coming to power, our record is one of reducing crime by 22 per cent overall. Street crime is the problem, and what lies behind it, too often, is truancy.
Perhaps I may develop that part of the question. Obviously we want to intervene to try to keep children at school. We want to work with parents and educational welfare officers to keep children at school. But as regards those parents who will not—as opposed to cannot—co-operate with the education system to help to ensure that their children go to school and get the best possible chance, we must consider how best to take these measures forward. At the end of the day, parents get child benefit because they care for their children. Caring for their children includes ensuring that they go to school.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the long-term policies that are already in place to address the exceptionally complex issues. There is the complexity of raising salaries in the first place and, for many families, children's disabilities in approaching and making connections with school from an early age. What contribution does she believe that Sure Start is making to lay better foundations for the future?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is clear that behind truancy and, later, street crime often lie problems that go back many years. My noble friend is absolutely right: if we want to invest in children's futures, we must start with children as young as possible. Hence the Sure Start programme, for which I have received support from all sides of the House. By 2004, about 30 per cent of the poorest children will be in a Sure Start scheme—there will be 500 of them. With Sure Start, which is a huge act of faith on the Government's part, we should be able to break the link between poor incomes and poor outcomes for children who are otherwise at risk.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the key practical problem at present is the
690
behaviour of teenage truants? Has she any suggestions as to how a 5ft Bins parent should make a 6ft teenager go to school?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Government have introduced an array of initiatives from parenting orders to anti-social orders for children, and so on. At the end of the day, we want to encourage parents to work with the school system, especially education welfare officers. There are many reasons for truanting, one of which is that the child prefers to drift into a life of crime. But there are others—there may be bullying or disability may be involved.
That is why the Government are not only building on pupil referral units for children already excluded from school but are seeking to keep pupils within the school system by developing learning support units—1,000 of them across the country—to ensure that children at risk of exclusion stay within the mainstream education system without disrupting the learning of other children. I am sure that that is the right way forward.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords—
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that we ought to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, the Minister has not answered the fundamental question raised by my noble friend Lady Buscombe: why does she believe that making poor people poorer will reduce rather than increase the volume of crime and lawlessness?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the point about child benefit is that unlike other benefits that may be sanctioned, child benefit is universal. Therefore, irrespective of their class and income, those parents who refuse to work with the education authorities to try to ensure that their children go to school enjoy child benefit. We believe that the responsibility for ensuring that the child goes to school goes alongside those parents' right to enjoy that benefit. At the end of the day, the Government's strategy to take children out of poverty, of which I am proud, will be wrecked if those children do not go to school and as a result have no future.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether the proposal is really thought through and can be effective? For example, what happens where care is shared between separate parents and where the parent who was supposed to be in charge on the day of the alleged offence is not the one who normally receives child benefit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is precisely why the Government have been at pains to

691
emphasise that these are a set of proposals to be explored, not a worked-up scheme to bring to your Lordships' House.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as the Minister knows far more about social security benefits than anyone else, the House will be interested to know whether or not she is in favour of the proposition. Has she told the Prime Minister—and will she tell the House—to what extent, if child benefit was withdrawn, those from whom it was withdrawn would be entitled to more of other benefits?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well that everyone standing at the Dispatch Box—whether he or I—speaks for their party and, in my case, for my Government. Any government who since 1997 will have raised the rate of income support for children under 11 from £16.90 to £37 this October—more than double in cash terms and double in real terms—are a government of whom I am deeply proud.

Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in order to protect computerised systems against denial of service attacks. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Northesk).
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Civil Service Act
3.7 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenhamrose to call attention to the case for a Civil Service Act clarifying the respective responsibilities of Ministers, political advisers and civil servants; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, some of your Lordships may be wondering what is the point of holding this debate when the Government are committed to imminent legislation. It is precisely because that assumption is a little over-optimistic that the debate is timely.
Last November, Sir Richard Wilson told the Public Administration Committee in another place that consultation on a Civil Service Act would start in the New Year. Two months ago, on 26th February, the Cabinet Office again promised that consultation on a Civil Service Act would start shortly. Subsequently, an issues paper was promised, hot on the heels of the significant speech made by Sir Richard at the end of March calling for an Act as outgoing Cabinet Secretary.
692
It is now 1st May, and there is no sign of government-initiated consultation on the issues. So perhaps the Minister and the Government will take this debate as a little bit of do-it-yourself consultation—an attempt to kick start what appears to be a rather tardy process within Westminster and Whitehall. I am also conscious that this is one of those precious second Chamber moments that we have from time to time when the Minister responsible is here to respond. I very much welcome that.
I also thank so many noble Lords with such a wealth of relevant and distinguished experience for putting their names down to speak this afternoon. I can only say how sorry I am that each of them has so little time in which to speak. I shall try to conclude my remarks in less than the 15 minutes allotted, to leave a few seconds each for those noble Lords who have more to say than they can say in four minutes. Unlike the great majority of them, I am an innocent abroad, in the sense that I have been neither a Minister, a civil servant nor a special adviser. Whether that makes for objectivity or naivety, we shall have to see, but I must declare an interest as chairman of the Hansard Society, which has a long-standing commitment to the value of our democratic institutions and to the need to ensure that our governance is refined and improved where necessary.
I begin with three questions. First, why should we need a Civil Service Act? Secondly, given that we do, what might be the nature of such an Act? Thirdly, when will the Government honour their promise to propose a Bill?
I shall start by saying that, despite the feverish efforts of the press and the unstinting determination of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to do his best to help, I doubt that Whitehall is or was in chaos, to use Sir Richard's word. There was a bit of effing and blinding and a lot of embarrassment, but I do not think that there was chaos. Those of us who want an Act do not see it as another piece of short-term crisis management; we probably have too much of that sort of legislation before us already. There is no crisis in the Civil Service. This country has a Civil Service that is notable for its good sense, its good ethos and its good advice and is, rightly, the envy of many other countries.
There are, however, legitimate anxieties, not least on the part of the civil servants themselves, as the service adjusts to the massively raised expectations of governments and citizens. There are new, intensified pressures on the Civil Service to deliver. The senior Civil Service can no longer be properly described as being administrative, with all the calm, static virtues that that implies. The Senior Civil Service is now managerial and is concerned with allocating resources and increasing productivity to achieve objectives, often in relatively short time-scales. That is a more dynamic model than the one with which we all grew up. That has happened in the context of the endemic partisanship of our public culture. Excessive politicisation is creeping in everywhere.

693
We have had impatient Ministers in Conservative and Labour governments driven by an even more impatient No. 10 and committing themselves—overcommitting themselves—to specific public service targets. They want deliverables, and they want them fast. The temptation for Ministers—and often for senior civil servants—is to micro-manage. That is wrong and should be resisted—indeed, it often is. A change from policy generation to strategic leadership is necessary and is probably only half-realised, as the new Cabinet Secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull, made apparent in an interview with The Times this morning.
The impatience to achieve leads to the use of other tools. Special and expert advisers are recruited. Consultants—some thinly disguised as Members of your Lordships' House—are taken on. There are internal reporting systems that drive performance. There is an emphasis on news control and spin in a bid to win the space, make the changes and get the credit. There is a certain can-do attitude to the cutting of corners and, on occasion, a deplorable crossing of the boundaries between national and party interest. 1t is too easy to create a culture in Whitehall in which achievers and believers are pushed ahead, and cooler heads are pushed aside. Prime Ministers notoriously favour those who bring them solutions.
The first reason why we need a Civil Service Act is to make sure that, in the face of the pressures and amid a torrent of understandable change, the well-established virtues of impartiality—or objectivity, as the Committee on Standards in Public Life prefers to call it—political neutrality, promotion by merit and not through patronage and ethical or professional standards of behaviour are not swept away. Rather, they should be entrenched throughout Whitehall and the executive agencies, with a proper process for dealing with any fall from grace. We need a fixed point of reference in a fast-changing world.
The second, related reason for an Act is less well understood. Indeed, it merited only one short sentence in Sir Richard's lecture. By passing such an Act, we shall ensure that the ultimate accountability of the Civil Service for propriety and process is to Parliament, not to the executive. That is a constitutional development of the first importance. The Hansard Society Commission on Scrutiny, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, said that Parliament should be the "apex of accountability". So, alongside a Minister's responsibility for the performance of his or her department, such an Act would create a parallel and clear accountability for the way in which the Civil Service carries out its important functions. That accountability would be to Parliament.
There seems to be widespread recognition of the desirability of such an Act. It formed part of the Government's manifesto commitment; it appeared in the manifesto of the Liberal Democrats; and many Conservatives and commentators are in favour. The First Division Association is also in favour. Of course, such a move was originally recommended by Northcote-Trevelyan in 1853, a prospect scuppered, not least—I must admit—by Lord John Russell, the
694
Liberal Prime Minister. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Russell, his descendant, is not in his place. Be that as it may, the Liberal Democrats are now fully committed to such an Act.
What sort of Act should it be? Like Northcote-Trevelyan, I think that it should be short. The description that they used was "a few clauses". It should create accountability to Parliament via the Civil Service Commission in respect of compliance by Ministers, civil servants and various sorts of advisers with their respective codes of conduct. The codes should be refreshed and refined with the help of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and agreed by Parliament separately. The Civil Service Commission should report to Parliament annually on the state of the service, and civil servants should have easier access to the commission if they believe that there have been infringements of the codes. The commission, either at the request of Parliament or on a discretionary basis if it has substantial grounds to believe that a code has been breached, should have powers to investigate and report. The cultural and career barriers to whistle-blowing must be demolished.
It would clearly establish the proper gearing with Parliament if there were a matching committee here— preferably consisting of Members of both Houses—to consider and initiate reports by the commission. The Public Administration Committee, which has done such valuable work under its chairman, Dr Tony Wright, might provide the right basis for that. I must say that I miss the marvellous work that the old Royal Institute of Public Administration used to do; I am sure that other noble Lords feel the same. We miss RIPA when considering such issues.
My focus in introducing the debate is on getting structure and systems of accountability right, so I shall confine myself to mentioning only two areas of current controversy only. First, we should stop demonising political advisers. No doubt, some are more special than others, and, certainly, some are more expert. However, any government need help and will look for it. I am not inclined towards setting an arbitrary quota to fix the number of such advisers, although, as a matter of political judgment, a bit of restraint, particularly on the part of No. 10, would not go amiss. The line should be drawn in a different place and should not be crossed. If advisers are seen as suitable for an executive role, they should become civil servants—albeit temporarily. They should not otherwise be permitted to issue instructions to civil servants. It is one thing for a chief executive of a company to call in McKinsey—that often happens—but it would be extraordinary for him to put consultants in executive control of his management, unless he hired one or more of them for his management team.
Secondly, there is the apparent misuse of public service advertising for party advantage, an issue that has not been sufficiently discussed. Between 1999–2000 and 2000–01—election year—public service advertising went up by 69 per cent, peaking at an all-time record in March, in the immediate run-up to the election. So far, so circumstantial—but now we also

695
find that the chief executive of the Central Office of Information has been on a direct reporting line to Mr Alastair Campbell since February. Important conventions relating to public service advertising are being breached. In suggesting that that matter should also be part of the code, I invite the Minister to comment on that worrying situation in particular when he responds.
That brings me to my final questions. When shall we have the consultation document? When shall we have the Bill before us in Parliament? Sir Andrew, the new Cabinet Secretary, thinks that, as we have waited 150 years already, there is no particular hurry. That is not the manifesto pledge made by the Government. I trust that the Minister will have something positive to say to us about that. It has become one of the issues on which the Government's credibility depends. Procrastination does not look good in matters of standards. When the Government drag their feet on clear manifesto commitments to bring forward legislation, the Minister might remind himself that the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill has shown that this House and these Benches are capable of finding another way forward. I hope that we shall not have to. I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I welcome the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, even though I have only four minutes. There has always been a strong concept of service by those seeking to join the Civil Service. That was especially true in the post-war years. There had been a number of men and women who had served their country well and looked to the planning of the post-war society in which they would play a leading role. That idealism resulted in much of the ensuing work of restoring and repairing our country.
That attitude was a consequence of the great Northcote-Trevelyan reforms of the previous century. The report was momentous. The reforms which followed have been the bedrock of our administration and produced the professional non-party-political Civil Service which we have had the privilege to enjoy. They were the greatest development of public service in modern times. The standard set by the Civil Service filtered down into local government, into the professions and even to some extent into industry. That was a development which, looking back, must make us proud that it was in our country that we were able to devise a system of administration which was high-minded, ethical and practical, which actually worked, and which delivered what was promised.
A century later it fell to the Fulton committee, on which I had the privilege to serve, to put forward a number of reforms which, though substantial, did not change the ethos of the service, and the important changes in the relationship with government were accomplished with no great difficulty. It has been the expanding role of the special adviser which has brought the questioning of the relationship between Ministers and civil servants to a position it has not
696
occupied since the 1960s. The Fulton committee recommended the use of specialist advisers— experts with political views.
In 1974, six months before I went to the Treasury, I took on the responsibility of the Civil Service Department. There I had the responsibility of agreeing the salaries of certain specialist advisers; Nikki Kaldor, Tommy Balogh, Brian Abel-Smith and some others. Some of them were inherited from the Labour Party opposition. There were others whose qualifications were difficult to discover and, with justification, they were awarded modest remuneration.
In evidence to the Public Administration Committee in November last year, Sir Richard Wilson gave an account of his early experience. He said:
"I found myself at a much more junior level than I am now in a situation where special advisers were, as it were, giving me instructions and I found myself in quite difficult positions as a result of that. I think this question of how far special advisers in practice can tell or ask civil servants to do things is an issue which has existed for quite a long time as a grey area but has now become a matter of public concern and controversy".
That is an important statement to make. It is true that such situations exist. The civil servant knows that the special adviser has a direct link to the Minister and anything that the special adviser says must have a correspondingly high level of power and influence.
We have now reached the stage where the problem of special advisers needs urgently to be addressed. The notion of spin has always been a part of government— putting a good gloss on policies. It has always been part of any administration. What we have seen more recently are some special advisers who have accorded the practice a level of priority which has been in danger of transgressing the boundaries between spin and deceit. The departure of a number of information officers was in itself a serious signal. In the language of our time, they gave out information, rarely with spin even though, frequently, with a touch of gloss. We need to reaffirm the standards of service which we used to see and have come to expect.
Ever since the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms there have been from time to time anxious voices raised about the changing role of government and the Civil Service. This is another of those occasions. This time, I believe, it is more serious. A major task for the new head of the Civil Service, Sir Andrew Turnbull, is to accept the case for the specialist advisers who bring skills and expertise. However, the paramount need above everything else is to retain the standards of the Civil Service we have had the privilege to acquire.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I welcome the debate. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon. However, as regards being a Minister in the Civil Service Department, I preceded him, rather than followed him, by some four years. I therefore became—although at a junior level—the first Minister of the Civil Service in modern British history.

697
In those days, the reform tasks of the Civil Service were clear enough. They were to implement the recommendations of the Fulton committee, in which the noble Lord played a distinguished part, and to bring in outside entrants. They are the same changes for which Sir Andrew Turnbull is calling in today's press. Things move rather slowly in Whitehall as that was 30 years ago. There was also the small matter of indexing Civil Service pensions, which seemed to interest and pre-occupy the Civil Service Department to a considerable degree.
We on the political side had our own agenda which we embodied in the phrase "the new style of government". That had two elements to it. The first was that we needed to redefine the outputs and objectives of a great deal of government work in Whitehall so that the organisation behind the achieving and delivering of public services was more efficient. If necessary, we needed to bring in the private sector—that was the dawn of the privatisation idea. The second was that those who were managerially in charge of achieving those objectives would be properly accountable to Parliament via Select Committees, which in those days did not exist in their present form, rather than being lost in the general miasma of ministerial and departmental accountability which we and the public deemed to be extremely weak.
Like today's reformers, we believed that we could clarify the roles between the Ministers, who looked after policy and party-political matters, civil servants, who were supposed to be concerned with administration and impartial advice, and special advisers, most of whom in those days were paid by the political parties and not by the Government and who would be able, it was argued, to help civil servants. That was our high-minded aim.
The brief message that I have for your Lordships from that period, although it was long ago, is that the attempt to spend too much time defining too precisely the boundaries between the different groups does not in the end work. I know the theory—we heard it in the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Holme—that the Civil Service is supposed to be impartial and objective and that a Minister is supposed to inject party politics and so forth with the help of the special adviser. That is the theory and it is also the belief of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Its latest publication is full of such assertions.
In practice, that is not the way it worked or works today. Perhaps we can learn a little from our mistakes of the past and pass them on to the would-be reformers who are drawing up new legislation. The truth is that able civil servants are to some degree partisan and want to see the Government's purposes achieved. Of course, they may not want to see them achieved, which would not involve impartial advice but a policy stance. That is bringing policy views into the carrying out of public purposes.
Therefore, it is a myth to believe that it can always be said that all civil servants are impartial and objective. It would make life impossible for Ministers if they always were. Similarly, it is also a myth to imply
698
that all Ministers are so riddled with party bias and so tainted by being connected with parties that they are incapable of objective thought. An appalling heresy has crept into today's debate; that is, that anyone who has anything to do with any political party is incapable of independent or objective advice and thought. If one looks at Ministers in the present Government and in previous governments, one sees that that is an absurd distortion of the reality.
There is a grey area, as Sir Richard Wilson has told us, where common sense and integrity must operate and where rigid rules cannot be laid down. It may, alas, be necessary to have a Civil Service Act which brings the structure and organisation under parliamentary authority. After the notorious Order in Council of 3rd May 1997 the public and Parliament will no longer accept the business of rule by decree in the matter of the Civil Service. That has been abused and therefore will now have to be ended. In effect, that was the second point made by Sir Richard Wilson in his speech.
A Civil Service Act which seeks to define too clearly the role between Ministers, civil servants and special advisers will come unstuck and will be to the detriment of good government. That, at least, is the message and the lesson that we can learn from the past. I hope that it will not have to be re-learnt this time.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for providing the House with an opportunity to hold this debate. It is a well-known phenomenon for retired civil servants to show a surprising enthusiasm for things like freedom of information, for which they showed no great warmth while they were in the public service. Certainly when I was in the Civil Service, I was not in the vanguard of those arguing for a Civil Service Act.
I recall giving evidence to a committee of the other place under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Radice. For the reasons which have just been outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I argued that the Civil Service was better served in meeting the requirements of governments with the flexibility of the Civil Service Order in Council. Why, then, when a non-political Civil Service has survived for almost 150 years on the basis of the Royal Prerogative and the Civil Service Order in Council, is legislation now needed to provide for it?
In my view, the reason does not lie in the ill intentions of either this or any other government. It lies in the changing context in which government is conducted. That has introduced requirements which have become, I think, dangerous to the concept of a non-political Civil Service. I shall cite one example. Governments have of course become more media driven. Today Ministers need not only expert advisers, they also need expert advisers on the art of presentation, and they do not fall comfortably within the proper role of the Civil Service. In my view, that kind of thing is best undertaken by political appointees. Since Ministers have both a governmental

699
and a party political role, the two have to work together. In my experience, people inside the system are very well aware of the borderline between the Civil Service and party political roles and they observe it.
But I shall not deny that in some cases the borderline is crossed, and we live in a sceptical age. What may seem perfectly proper within the system does not always seem so to those outside, in particular to the opposition parties, on whom the continuance of a nonpolitical Civil Service greatly depends. It is time for the distinctions to be clarified and set out in a form which the main political parties and Parliament understand and are comfortable with.
To that end, some changes in the present arrangements could usefully be made. I have in mind three in particular. First, I believe that the time has come to make a distinction between "political" special advisers and "expert" special advisers and to fund them differently.
Secondly, while "political" special advisers should not be debarred from representing the views of their Ministers to the media, this role should be kept separate from departmental press offices, which should be staffed by civil servants operating in a factual and objective way, steering clear of party political debate.
Thirdly, when people with known or declared political loyalties apply for and are appointed to Civil Service posts, I believe that the Civil Service Commission should have a formal obligation to ensure a nil obstat from the opposition parties. Informal arrangements have been reached in the past, but I think that it would be advantageous to put it on to a more formal basis.
I believe that it would be useful if these and other aspects were enshrined in Civil Service legislation. We should not expect such legislation to avoid all future difficulties over the roles of civil servants and special advisers. But in the long term it would achieve something that is more important: it would offer an opportunity to define the distinction between Civil Service and party political functions in a way that the main political parties and Parliament would understand and have confidence in. It would make it more unlikely that a future government would doubt the political impartiality of the Civil Service they inherit and thus it would help to maintain something which, in my view, is an asset to British government and which we sould seek to retain and foster; that is, a permanent, impartial and non-political Civil Service.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Radice: My Lords, as a new Member, I have been told this is one of those House of Lords debates which are always extremely impressive. I can see that this is definitely going to be such a debate, with contributions from former Ministers and heads of the Civil Service. Indeed, I believe that one former head of the Civil Service is not going to participate because two former heads are already speaking.
700
I rise briefly and modestly to support the case for a Civil Service Act. I should say that this is not a new question because many of us have long been in favour of such legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, pointed out, I was chairman of the sub-committee which reported in favour of such an Act. We also came out in favour of introducing the Civil Service Code. We even prepared a draft code which was accepted by the Conservative government of the day. I should like to pay tribute to the role played by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in that. As I have said, we also came out in favour of legislation, but the then government did not see the argument in favour of that proposal.
I believe that strong arguments can be put forward in favour of a Civil Service Act. They do not arise primarily because of the recent controversy over special advisers, although of course I accept that there have been rows about them. I accept also that there has been an increase in the numbers of such advisers. However, I can recall that the previous government also had special advisers and there is nothing wrong with that; indeed, I think that they perform an extremely useful role. At the time rows broke out over the role and activities of special advisers. I recall in particular the row over the position of Sir Bernard Ingham. The sub-committee commented on the ensuing controversy in one of its reports, so this argument is nothing new.
However, a short Act is needed in the main because—to echo the words of Sir Richard Wilson in his very effective speech made in March—we need, first, to define what a civil servant is—at the moment there is no definition; secondly, we need to enshrine in law rather than simply in a code the fundamental principles of selection and promotion on the basis of merit; and, thirdly, we need to enshrine the political impartiality of the Civil Service. I also believe that the time has now come to put into law the Civil Service Code. We need to define in law the code for special advisers and we need to examine the role and number of such special advisers.
In summary, we need to do all that was recommended in the Northcote-Trevelyan report. The Civil Service Commission needs to be put on to a statutory basis for the first time. Furthermore, I think that we need to provide a role for the Civil Service Commission in the judgment of grievances and redress for aggrieved civil servants. I take that view because I am not satisfied that the present system works adequately.
Finally, we need to underwrite the role of Parliament and, indeed, of the Select Committees in the Act's supervision.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying the following. The case for a Civil Service Act has been accepted by the Government. That was made clear in the election manifesto. On numerous occasions in the other place and, I believe, in this House, the Government have stated that they are committed to such an Act.
The argument no longer turns on whether one is for it or against it; what really drives the matter is when will the Government fulfil their commitment. Noble

701
Lords are right to wait with impatience for the consultation paper, which has been promised for a very long time. We are also right to await the legislation. To that end, I believe that the message of our debate this afternoon can be summed up as follows: "It is time to get on with it".
3.39 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend for bringing these matters before the House. In the 1960s and 1970s, during my own time in government, I would have been rather surprised at the idea of a Civil Service Act. Governments are organic and comprise more than their formal institutions. As the culture of politics changes, a new balance is struck between Ministers, career civil servants and outsiders. Even in the earlier part of the 20th century, as we know from diaries and memoirs, those ubiquitous public servants, Eddie Marsh and Tom Jones, moved in and out at the highest level on a personal and sometimes political basis. More relevant, many outsiders entered Whitehall during the war and some outstanding figures continued into career civil servants.
Other outsiders served Ministers in the Attlee government as irregulars—in effect, special advisers to Herbert Morrison, Cripps and Dalton. There was also the mixed central planning staff under Edwin Plowden, and talented outsiders moved between the economic section of the Treasury and the universities.
The Department of Economic Affairs, the DEA, in which I became a junior Minister in 1964, had a core of career civil servants but many outsiders, some with strong political loyalties. An able political appointee, Robert Neild, became the economic adviser to the Treasury in 1964, causing a fuss; but in 1997 his lineal descendant was given the less controversial title of economic adviser to the Chancellor.
After a stretch of 13 years in opposition, and then 18, new Ministers were sometimes suspicious about civil servants and civil servants about Ministers, but most grew out of their doubts and became resilient and flexible. However, I am persuaded that there is serious anxiety about the morale of the Civil Service almost as disturbing as in the mitt-1980s.
I agree, for example, that there may be a case for capping the number of special advisers, although the main growth has been at No. 10, which raises wider constitutional questions. I agree also that the Byers episode was a mess and that there are important lessons about the management of a department, and not only for Ministers and press and information officers.
I believe that openness between special advisers and senior civil servants, especially with private secretaries of Ministers and permanent secretaries, is essential to the smooth working of government, based on respect and trust.
These and other matters were usefully discussed in the sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I welcome its recent Issues and Questions Paper, Defining the Boundaries. But in reviewing a
702
growing literature about Ministers, civil servants, outsiders and special advisers, I hope that options will be brought into sharper focus taking a historical view.
3.43 p.m.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for introducing the debate. As the First Civil Service Commissioner, I am grateful far the opportunity to contribute to it. I hope that this debate and the wider discussions that will follow the Government's proposed consultation paper on a Civil Service Act will encourage a considered debate and lead to a broad consensus on the framework in which we expect the Civil Service to operate.
I had intended to spend some time outlining the background to our role but, as I have only four minutes, I shall go on to the issues that I wish to raise. In the context of the debate, there are two questions I should like to explore. First, at a time of substantial reform—which I believe is necessary—and when, more than ever, concerns are being expressed about the blurring of boundaries within the executive, is there anything more that needs to be done to support the maintenance of an impartial and competent Civil Service which is equipped to respond to the challenges of today's world, deliver services and serve the best interests of everyone in society? Secondly, does an Order in Council, which is the current means by which the Civil Service is ordered, represent the right legislative vehicle?
First, are the current checks and balances currently in force sufficient to ensure an impartial Civil Service? The role of the Civil Service is clear; it is to serve successive governments with equal loyalty, integrity and deliver the agenda of the government of the clay. Yet the point is increasingly being made that because the number of special advisers has increased considerably under the current administration, that in itself must be a sign that the impartiality of the Civil Service is at risk.
I do not see things that way. For me, the key issue is whether there is sufficient clarity about the roles of civil servants in general and about special advisers in particular; and whether there are effective mechanisms in place to monitor and enforce the various codes governing the conduct of special advisers and civil servants.
I believe that special advisers have a valuable role to play. Their place within the government system is now accepted and they are a useful part of the political landscape. Their relationship with permanent officials and Ministers, of course, depends on their personality, expertise and strength. As we know, things do go wrong. If they are given too much power or influence they will undermine the relationship between Ministers and civil servants.
It is in the public interest that the Civil Service itself should remain a main source of innovation, able to command the confidence of Ministers and execute their policies. It is important to get this balance right, otherwise we risk demoralising the Civil Service and making it more difficult to recruit and retain the high

703
quality individuals needed to deliver public services, now and in the future. Therefore we need clarity about respective roles and arrangements for dealing with situations where boundaries are in danger of being crossed.
When special advisers were first appointed they were seen as a source of party political advice for Ministers, a means by which Ministers—and therefore the government of the day—remained connected with their party. But things have moved on, and the code of conduct for special advisers now includes as part of their role,
"preparing speculative policy papers which can generate long-term policy thinking within the Department, including policies which reflect the political viewpoint of the Minister's party",
and,
"representing the views of their Minister to the media including a Party viewpoint, where they have been authorised by the Minister to do so".
All this seems to go beyond the role of special advisers as set out in the 1995 Order in Council, which states that their purpose is,
"only of providing advice to any Minister".
There appears to be a variance between the legal basis for a special adviser's role and that set out in their code.
There is also the question of the role of special advisers in the management of other civil servants. The Order in Council is again clear in specifying that, with three notable exceptions, special advisers do not manage other civil servants. Yet I saw an Answer to a Parliamentary Question recently which referred to no civil servants being "directly" managed by special advisers, apart from the three exceptions laid down in the Order in Council.
I am not a civil servant, but my knowledge of their specialist drafting skills over many years makes me wonder whether the incorporation of the word "directly" in the Answer might be a cover for relations between special advisers and civil servants that are closer than the Order in Council intended.
Such lack of clarity over the role and powers of special advisers leads not only to speculation about whether there is increased politicisation of the Civil Service but also confuses the rights and obligations of civil servants under both the Civil Service code and the special advisers code.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness of the need to strictly apply the four minute rule.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, perhaps I may make my final point. I can deal with it quickly.
Moving on to my second question about the right legislative vehicle for such issues, I recognise that some will say that changes and clarifications can be achieved without a Civil Service Act; codes can be re-written and Orders in Council changed. In my view, that would not be an ideal situation.
704
By enshrining in statute the core values of appointment on merit after fair and open competition, and by incorporating in statute the responsibilities and powers of the Civil Service commissioners, including the obligation to report on their work, we would place the constitutional position of the Civil Service more directly under the oversight of Parliament. By disentangling the constitutional position of the Civil Service—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I remind the House that noble Lords who stray past the four minutes take time away from other Peers who wish to contribute to the debate.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, it is appropriate for this debate that, within the category of "special advisers", it is political advisers whose role requires clarification in a Civil Service Bill. So I agree with the Motion.
Noble Lords will recall that I have drawn attention to the need for clear statements of the functions of special advisers ever since the debate that I initiated in this House in 1997. I advocated the introduction of a new Civil Service Bill. I am glad that the Government are now likely to accept such a recommendation. The functions and roles of advisers should be defined in that Bill, and they should be given statutory authorisation. Do the Government accept such an idea and, if so, when can a Bill be expected?
An important reason for introducing such a measure is that special advisers are not accountable to Parliament. Presumably, they cannot be summoned to give evidence to Select Committees. Ministers have recently responded to questions on this subject by comparing numbers. They have pointed to the several thousand civil servants working in Whitehall and to the figure of about 80 special advisers. I suggest that such a comparison misses the point. The special advisers work directly for Ministers—mostly on political subjects—and are expected to depart when a general election leads to a change in the party in office. The large majority of the civil servants are engaged in work which does not involve dealing with Ministers directly on political subjects.
Of course, the two categories have to work together, and they must understand and acknowledge each other's functions. The duties of civil servants have been fairly clear for many years and are set out in documents. The role of special advisers is not yet similarly specified.
I make it clear that I have never objected to the existence and activities of special advisers. I tabled a Question recently, not because I object to them, but because I like to be kept informed of what is happening. The reply confirmed that two special advisers working at No. 10 have the power to instruct civil servants. They are the chief of communications and the chief of staff at No. 10. Is the number to remain at two, or are there likely to be more appointments of special advisers with powers to instruct civil servants?
3.53 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, on his success in the ballot and on choosing this subject for debate. I strongly agree with him on the need to clarify the respective responsibilities of Ministers, political advisers and civil servants.
Ministers are supported by a permanent, nonpolitical, professional career Civil Service, with, in the words of G. M. Trevelyan, its accumulated stores of knowledge, experience and sound tradition. The result of the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms of the 19th century was the removal of the Civil Service from the field of political jobbery by the adoption of open competitive examination as the method of entrance.
Of course, the public service is not, and should not be, immune to reform. Indeed, it sometimes seems to me that there has been a more or less continuous process of public service reform, at least since 1979 if not since the Fulton committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, was a distinguished member. However, there are continuing values that we should be seeking to retain throughout the process of reform. If, as I believe, the system of government in this country has been relatively free of political and other forms of corruption, that has been at least partly because the permanent Civil Service, as it has been developed, is an important force for integrity in that system.
Special advisers are not a new breed. They have been around in one form or another for a good many years, under governments of both the main political parties. In my experience, a special adviser can be a very useful addition to the support of a busy Minister—to advise the Minister on the specifically political dimension of his policies and actions, and to assist in interpreting the Minister's political views and needs to civil servants—so long as he does not act as though he is usurping the authority of the Minister.
But one can have too much, even of a good thing. There are now over 80 special advisers, 26 of them in 10 Downing Street. That is more than double the number before 1997. I believe that the machinery of government would work just as well, and I dare say better, with a good many fewer special advisers—and not only in No. 10. I am not persuaded that all departmental Ministers need two special advisers in addition to a raft of junior Ministers. I would make the quota one, with two being allowed only in exceptional cases.
So I agree with noble Lords who have proposed that there should be a limit, either on the total number of special advisers paid from public funds, or on the total amount of public funds expended on the employment of special advisers.
We also need to define the role of special advisers and to distinguish it from that of civil servants. Special advisers have a different function—one might say a different agenda—from civil servants. Civil servants are accountable to Ministers for honest and dispassionate advice on policies, for making sure that
706
Ministers are as fully and accurately informed as possible, for the execution of policies once decided upon, and for the administration and management of government.
Special advisers are also accountable to Ministers— in so far as they are accountable at all—but they are advisory, and their agenda in the task of advising Ministers is, first and foremost, party political. The two strands of accountability come together at ministerial level. In my view, it is unwise to try to bring them together below that; the functions and the agenda are so different.
I do not believe that it is wise to put special advisers in charge of civil servants. I know that there are at present only two special advisers—both in 10 Downing Street—who are in that position. Nevertheless, when I learn not only that the Central Office of Information (or whatever it is now called) has been brought under the umbrella of the Cabinet Office, but also—as the noble Lord, Lord Holine, reminded us—that for some of her functions the head of the COI reports and is responsible directly to the Director of Strategy and Communications in 10 Downing Street, Mr Alastair Campbell, then I fear that the Government are laying themselves still further open to the perception that party political considerations are being allowed to exert too great an influence on the activities of the Government's public relations service and the integrity of the Civil Service is at greater risk of being seriously compromised.
I have not been in favour of a Civil Service Act, My preference would be to continue to rely in such matters on codes of guidance and practice which can be more flexible and susceptible to adjustment in changing circumstances than can statutory legislation.
My primary care and concern are for the integrity of the Civil Service. We must not lose sight of the value of that and of the need to preserve it. I. have been out of the public service for 14 years. If the judgment of those who are closer to these matters than I am is that the preservation of the integrity of the Civil Service now requires a Civil Service Act, then so be it.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, welcoming the Motion as I do, I must declare that I was a special adviser for over five years, heading the Downing Street Policy Unit, where I worked with six of the speakers in today's debate. It is quite a club reunion for us. Four were civil servants and two were special advisers. As such, I strongly believe in the valuable role of special advisers. They are important and their existence is justified in the crucial political dimension of government—and governments are political. Not all special advisers are, or have been, perfect, but that is true of some civil servants and even of some politicians. I am not convinced that legislation would remedy that.
My main purpose in speaking today is to take what is, I think, a minority view, although in a special area, and to question the need for legislation to clarify the specific issue of relations between civil servants and

707
special advisers. We may well, however, need an Act for other reasons, and I believe that the noble Lords, Lord Holme, Lord Butler and Lord Radice and others, will make an excellent case for that. Although I certainly agree that relations between the political and the official side require clarity—problems arise if it is not clear who does what—we do not necessarily need heavy, detailed legislation for that particular purpose. I am not sure that the existence of an Act would have solved those problems in the Department of Transport.
I should perhaps mention one aspect of my experience on entering No. 10 Downing Street, in March 1974. The then Cabinet Secretary, Sir John Hunt, and I had a series of intensive negotiations, assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, on precisely this subject. The result was what we called the concordat, a list of so-called general rules on access to committees, papers and people which was issued to Whitehall. This concordat gave the policy unit necessary access, and in return we assured permanent officials that we would not cross wires, usurp the role of Ministers or seek to replace the normal channels of communication between officials and Ministers. It established in detail where special advisers go and what they see and set no limit on their access to their Ministers. It allowed the flexibility of extra access following consultation so that everyone would know what was going on.
I believe that the arrangement worked, although my four Civil Service colleagues may dissent. I also suggest that it is a more practical and flexible path on this specific issue than legislation, which is often rigid and—as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said from his experience—set in concrete and too heavy handed. Each department could take this approach with its own general rules together with the existing code of conduct, refined to specific needs and subject to revision with each new administration and Minister.
I also think that special advisers might benefit from a brief period of training and induction. They do perform a distinct and valuable role, and I do not believe that a mere six or seven dozen of them are a mighty threat to the great Civil Service machine. However, they will perform their distinctive role better for their Ministers if they work closely with the official machine and if both sides are clear and educated on their own territorial boundaries and responsibilities.
I was encouraged by the characteristically sensible comments by Sir Andrew Turnbull in The Times today and think that this particular issue can mainly be settled departmentally. Sir Andrew says that it can be done following the No. 10 Downing Street Policy Unit model. I hope that that is the task which will be followed, even within the context of an Act addressing the wider issues raised in this excellent debate.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Holme on initiating this vital
708
debate. As he observed, it is particularly timely coinciding as it does with Sir Andrew Turnbull's interview in today's The Times.
As many noble Lords have remarked, in the past 20 years, the Civil Service has had to operate in a very turbulent milieu. Successive governments have introduced a plethora of innovations in the name of modernising the apparatus of the state. It is of course the duty of government to bring in new methods in order to discharge their duties in whatever efficacious way they think fit. But these have occurred without the slightest attention being paid to the need for proper accountability. It is not any one particular reform that may be objected to in this context; rather, it is their aggregative effect that is at question. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, in sum total they have given rise to the political demi-monde, a labyrinthine series of quagmirish networks populated by "hived off' state agencies, quangos, task forces, think tanks, policy czars, unaccredited peripatetic plenipotentiaries, management consultants and lobbyists. They are the policy context in which the Civil Service has to work.
It is this demi-monde that the Civil Service has had to learn to live with somehow or other. If we had a written constitution, these recent innovations in the workings of the state could not have occurred without adequate provisions being made for robust public accountability. Some of the senior Whitehall mandarinate, such as Sir Andrew Turnbull seemingly, believe that there should be an extension of the demi-monde and that he and his official colleagues are quite capable of adapting to it in some sort of undefined manner. That, of course, is the problem. Others such as Sir Richard Wilson, current head of the Civil Service, appear to argue that the service and many of its qualities for independence, objectivity, merit appointment and non-partisanship, will be unable to withstand much more encroachment by the demi-monde. That is why Sir Richard proposes a Civil Service Act which would put the permanent element of the Executive on a statutory basis. Such an Act is commonplace in most other liberal democracies and would go a long way in delineating the precise role of the service vis-ä-vis the denizens of the demi-monde.
Formal codification of this sort would not only restore a large measure of accountability to the Executive branch of government but would have the additional benefits of making it more amenable to effective scrutiny by the legislative branch and review by the judicial branch. While the institutions and processes of government may become outdated, the basic principles of democracy, of which accountability is among the most important, do not. The constitutional canons of the 19th century are still valid, and they need equally to be applied and adapted to meet our contemporary arrangements. Governments are criticised for their acts of commission when these fall short or go awry, but they are really upbraided for their acts of omission that may well be equally harmful to the good ordering of affairs.

709
The introduction of a Civil Service Act, now long overdue, would restore public faith in the Government's commitment to constitutional reform. This received a welcome fillip last week when it was announced that the Prime Minister was willing to appear twice a year before the Liaison Committee consisting of the Select Committee Chairmen of another place. That is a clear example of improving public accountability. Commitment to speedy introduction of a Civil Service Act would be another.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Burns: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for introducing this debate. I am encouraged that there is much agreement today about the role of Ministers, political advisers and civil servants and about the need for clarity. It goes without saying that I agree about the enormous value that we derive from a non-political permanent Civil Service that includes appointments to the most senior level. However, I also agree that there is much benefit to be gained from continuing to open up appointments at senior levels to give outsiders the opportunity to compete on merit. Some progress has been made in recent years, but I think that there is probably scope to go further.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I am also persuaded that there is an important role for temporary "expert" advisers who have proven policy skills which appeal to Ministers to assist in the policy process. However, it is important that Ministers, in taking advantage of those skills, appreciate the policy skills that the permanent Civil Service brings. I do not particularly like the fashionable distinction that maintains that Ministers and advisers should set policy whereas delivery is down to the Civil Service. In my experience, it is important that those charged with delivery are fully involved in policy design, and furthermore that policymakers understand that the quality of their design will have a substantial influence on the chances of successful delivery.
I do not think that anyone who has worked at a senior level within Whitehall now doubts that there is also an important role for "political" special advisers. Throughout my time in the Civil Service, there was very little problem with "the borderline" with permanent civil servants. Although there have been some high-profile exceptions, I do not think that they should cloud what has generally been a very positive relationship. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that it is vital that departmental press offices should be staffed by civil servants who provide information in a factual and objective way. That gives confidence to the world outside that they are getting a straight story.
However, I am in the minority today in that I am not yet persuaded that there is an urgent need for a Civil Service Act. I am not sure that such an Act would make a huge difference in practice. It seems that Ministers, civil servants and political advisers generally do know their responsibilities, and the
710
arrangement works well most of the time. When it does not, it tends to be because of personalities and circumstances rather than the absence of statute.
My perception is that within Whitehall there is a marketplace for advice. In practice Ministers will listen to advice from a variety of sources and make their judgment on their view of the merits of that advice. Civil servants do not have a monopoly of policy skills and therefore cannot expect to have a monopoly in the supply of advice. Like all marketplaces there is some role for rules to ensure fair trading, but my tentative view remains that this is best achieved through codes of conduct and clarification. At the same time we need to be sufficiently flexible to cope with future evolution rather than trying to fix things at any point in time.
In coming to that view I was very much influenced by the observation that in the commercial world management practices evolve over time in many ways. We see this in relation to outsourcing and in relation to the proportion of senior management who come from within or outside organisations. We see it in different methods of appointment and the extent to which people use consultants and outside advisers in a whole variety of ways. I am wary about seeking to legislate for best practice today knowing how far life and management practices could evolve in the future. I worry that whatever we set out to define today would not be terribly robust very far into the future.
My own view is that before deciding on whether or not we need legislation, we need much more debate and a greater degree of consensus about some of the substantive issues that have been discussed today. Only when that consensus has been achieved and some of the issues that clearly concern noble Lords have been resolved should we consider whether legislation is necessary or whether just as much could be achieved by a rather greater degree of clarification that could be brought about in some other way.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I, too, welcome the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. I wish to reinforce the call for a Civil Service Act and, in the few minutes available to me, to suggest that such an Act is a necessary but not sufficient condition for improving the quality of government in this country.
The case for a Civil Service Act is a persuasive one because of changes in the nature of government. Government in this country has never been some homogeneous whole. It has comprised several parts, and the relationship between them has been one of interdependence. It has been an interdependence of defined parts, each proceeding on the basis of respect for the others. That mutual respect has declined in recent years. We have seen conflict and, more especially, a blurring of the boundaries that have been a feature of British government.
The change that has occurred is, I believe, largely though not wholly, for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, the consequence of a trend towards a centralisation of power—the Prime Minister seeking greater autonomy in policy making—and in

711
recent years exaggerated and hence unsustainable expectations of what civil servants should and can do. The Cabinet Secretary has been left with the unenviable task of defending what were previously well-understood norms as to the respective roles of Ministers and civil servants.
Exaggerated expectations may to some degree be attributed to the lack of previous experience on the part of Ministers. There has always been a problem in that each Minister, when appointed to head a department, has basically had to re-invent the wheel. Ministers come in with no training and usually with very little guidance as to what is expected of them. The way in which one Minister runs a department may bear little relationship to how other Ministers run theirs. This is a problem but one ameliorated to some extent if Ministers have spent some years in junior office. In 1997, a new government was elected and most new Ministers had no prior experience of government. There had been some seminars laid on for them in opposition, but in practice this did not appear to equip them for the management of departments.
This analysis leads me to the conclusion that a Civil Service Act is necessary but not sufficient. It is necessary in order to establish the relationship between the different parts of government. However, by itself it is not sufficient. As Sir Richard Wilson mentioned in his recent speech, such an Act would be no guarantee of good behaviour. I believe that it should be complemented by a structured programme of training for senior Ministers. Government in this country has been the preserve of amateurs: Ministers and senior officials have never been subject to professional training. Senior civil servants are managers but their focus has been primarily that of policy advice. Some training is provided through the Centre for Management and Policy Studies, not only for officials but also now, I gather, for junior Ministers. What is needed is a more rigorous training for senior Ministers so that there can be a dissemination of best practice and also in order that Ministers can gain some understanding of the role and relationship of Ministers to civil servants. Stipulating functions and responsibilities by statute is valuable—arguably now it is necessary—but it only takes us so far. To understand the fundamentals of relationships, of how government has developed and how Ministers can get the most out of their departments—in a way that brings out the best in their officials—requires normative guidance and an understanding of best practice.
I have little doubt that the Minister will reiterate that the Government are committed to the introduction of a Civil Service Bill. I shall be interested to know whether the Government also accept that such a measure should be complemented by a training programme for all incoming Ministers. Stipulating responsibilities and relationships is one thing; appreciating them is another. The two must go together.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I also welcome the debate. I do not want to be a "party pooper" by opposing the convivial atmosphere in favour of a Civil Service Bill. I am in favour of a Civil Service Bill. I believe that a well conceived Civil Service Bill could do a bit of good and not much harm. However, I lay stress on the words "well conceived".
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, is in a hurry as regards a Bill. However, what is in the Bill matters much more than that we have a Bill. A rush to legislation would not necessarily be right in this case. I say that particularly because if we rush to legislation now we should be rather dominated by what seems to me a febrile and short-run controversy about political advisers. There are many public servants present who are more distinguished than I should ever dream of being. However, if one looks at the governance of our country and the state of our Civil Service and the issues facing it—openness, the skills required, the way it is managed and so on and so forth—special advisers come rather low down the list. I hope that we shall not become fixated on that. Having said that, as a former special adviser I shall demonstrate that I am fixated on it by stating my view of how to deal with the problem, at least in part.
Much of the problem with special advisers arises because we treat them like some kind of ersatz civil servants or centaur civil servants, half man, half beast. We cannot quite get the special adviser concept to fit into the Civil Service box. That is partly because civil servants and special advisers are paid out of the same pot of money voted in the same way by Parliament and subject to the same scrutiny.
My proposal, which I put to the Public Administration Committee in the Commons, is that special advisers should be treated differently. They should be treated in the same way as aides to the opposition are treated and provided for through the Short money, which is specifically voted by Parliament for that purpose. That means that every year the Government would have to justify to Parliament the amount of money they wanted to spend on special advisers and the number of special advisers that that would support. I am pleased to say that the Public Administration Committee adopted my proposal. I was not the least bit surprised that the Government rejected it because of course they would like to be able to appoint as many special advisers as they like at whatever salaries they think they can get away with and with the minimum of parliamentary scrutiny.
I believe that Parliament should take a different view. There is now a chance to get this matter going again. The Wicks inquiry, which I very much welcome, heard evidence from the proposers of the measure and is taking an interest in it. I hope that with the support of this House the Government can be made to think again and the position of special advisers can be regulated at least in the regard that I mentioned.
Finally, let us suppose that a Bill came before both Houses. This week a Joint Committee was established to examine the Communications Bill. That is a

713
complicated piece of legislation involving big but not partisan issues. If we have a Bill on the subject we are discussing, there is a great deal to be said for having a Joint Committee of Parliament to examine it—it should he bipartisan as the legislation will be of use only if it is bipartisan—taking in the great wisdom we have seen displayed in this House and which I know exists in the Public Administration Committee and elsewhere. We should incorporate within the Bill not just the interests of government as an institution and those of civil servants as an institution but also the fundamental interest in all this of Parliament as a representative of our democracy. I hope that the Government and the Houses of Parliament will pick up that proposal and run with it.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for introducing this important topic. I should declare my interests: my father was a permanent civil servant, my son was a political adviser, my daughter works for the National Health Service and I was a contract civil servant for five years —I was chief executive of a government agency: the Met Office. Because of its international activities, I was able to observe how civil services operate in other countries.
As other noble Lords have noted, there is no questioning the fact that the British Civil Service continues to have very high calibre staff. They are trusted by Ministers and are expected, as they have done for 200 years or more, to take independent decisions. They do that knowing very well that if they make mistakes, they cannot be quite sure that they will not take the rap. They certainly cannot be sure that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility always prevails.
That theoretical aspect to the operation of the Civil Service is one that a new Act needs to address, especially in light of more open government. It is that unclear element in the relationship between civil servants and Ministers that sometimes gives rise to anonymous briefings and extraordinary misunderstandings about the truth. One remembers Hilaire Belloc's ditty:
"Matilda told such Dreadful Lies,
It made one Gasp and Stretch one's Eyes".
I agree with other noble Lords about the need for political advisers. Implicitly, they refer only to political advice to Ministers, but every senior civil servant needs extremely acute eyes, ears and political advice to perform effectively in relation to Whitehall, Westminster and the wider world.
No one is proposing to offer political advisers to the chief executive of the Met Office or the Passport Agency, so what is to be done? Short of recruiting the extraordinarily sophisticated cadres from the French grandes écoles, we need drastically to improve the political training of all civil servants. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Most civil servants work far from Whitehall but they need to understand how the Civil Service, government and politics work. They also need to understand the demimonde, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, called it, and
714
how that relates to the UK system as a whole. I recall inviting a senior police officer to a local Labour Party meeting. He had never previously been to a political meeting in his life.
Many civil servants and politicians sometimes have a better education of the whole system when they visit the United States as Fulbright scholars than they have ever experienced through the UK. I very much hope that the training of UK civil servants is improving in relation to that more political role.
Finally, I very much hope that the Minister will allow civil servants to give evidence during the discussions on the new Act and the new arrangements. In the past, some civil servants have been severely criticised or prevented from doing so. We need to have a wide range of input, not simply from Cabinet Secretaries.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, there has been legislation on the public service before, but one has to go back to the 18th century to find it. That legislation arose because Ministers in charge of departments had made it a practice to recruit Members of Parliament and put them on the departmental payrolls so as to control their vote. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the first legislation regarding the Civil Service was to prevent the corruption of Parliament.
We should remind ourselves of what the Northcote-Trevelyan report was up to. It was trying to improve the quality of public service, as we are doing today, to eliminate, in its words, "the unambitious, indolent and incapable" and to recruit the best graduates from the universities, which were themselves then subject to fundamental reforms. It concluded that,
"it can only be done through the medium of an Act of Parliament".
The Cabinet decided in 1854 to introduce a short Bill on that subject, but it did not do so because there was a barrage of criticism when the Northcote-Trevelyan report appeared. It was only when the administrative bungling and scandals of the Crimean War brought that matter again to its attention that it set up an arrangement that was based on an Order in Council under the Royal prerogative. That has been the basis for all subsequent legislation. The Orders in Council that were recently passed were not particularly controversial. The public have not been particularly well informed about what is happening. The Civil Service Department no longer exists. It is not clear how its responsibilities are being discharged or who is responsible for them.
The main point that leads me to feel that we should move towards legislation on the public service is the fact that something is happening to the unwritten constitution. It is changing in front of our eyes. It has been widely noted that the Cabinet now meets less regularly and for shorter periods. I suspect that our inherited constitutional system is undergoing a gradual but definite change. It is certainly an advantage of unwritten constitutions such as ours that

715
they are able to respond to new situations more quickly and with greater ability. That flexibility may be its greatest strength.
However, the converse must also be noted—that underlying principles and concepts tend to be overlooked in our scheme of things. It is a characteristic of British thinking that we tend to concentrate on practical matters that need to be dealt with and that we have less regard for the underlying principles that should motivate us. We need to review the workings of our present arrangements, possibly with a view to an Act that sets out some principles—not detailed points of administration—so that we know what we are aiming for. That is why it would be desirable to produce a Bill containing those principles.
We still need to recruit the ablest young men and women to work for our society as a whole. The process must be open and fair. Any tendency to revert to political patronage in the service of the state should be carefully controlled. One possibility is to execute the decision of the Cabinet in 1854 and to pass a short Bill on the subject that sets out those principles. As they say, it is never too late to mend.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I add my voice to those who are totally unpersuaded about the need for legislation on this matter. First, that is because we have had much too much constitutional legislation, and a period of digestion would be in order. Secondly, it is because if there were such legislation, it would either be far too restrictive and inflexible—it would not enable the government to adapt to what is happening in the real world, which we cannot predict—or it would be so full of loopholes as to be pretty useless.
I am reminded that between 1967 and 1970, my noble friend Lord Howell and I spent some time working on potential changes in the machinery of government. Because the election of 1970 was a busy moment for important politicians, I was delegated to discuss some of our ideas with the two great giants in Whitehall—Sir Burke Trend, then Secretary to the Cabinet, and Sir William Armstrong, then head of the Civil Service. At that time, one of our main proposals was to set up a body that became the Central Policy Review Staff, or CPRS. At that time, we thought that it should be under the Prime Minister. I was quickly persuaded by those two mandarins that that was not a good idea and that it should work for the Cabinet as a whole. That, of course, is what happened. It was a useful exercise, particularly, I suppose, because it was set up under Lord Rothschild, to whom the famous adage of Lord Curzon really did apply:
"No man should be Viceroy of India to whom that job is an honour".
It was only when Lord Rothschild departed that the arrangement crumbled and subsequent Prime Ministers scrapped it. That was an important innovation which required no legislation either to set it up or wind it up.
716
Why does all of this matter? One reason is because we want good government. That means honest, responsive and cost-effective government. Perhaps even more, it is because we want government that is perceived as being honest, responsive and cost-effective. To the people of Britain—this is the case in many countries—perception of government is at the same time both fuzzy and sharp. It is fuzzy because they do not make a clear distinction between the legislature and the executive—or even between the executive and the judiciary, let alone between the Commons and the Lords or between permanent, temporary, political or special adviser civil servants. That is unlike the United States whose constitution deliberately separates the legislature and the executive. British government is even more fuzzy in relation to Ministers, civil servants and the hybrid special adviser. Equally, perception can be quite sharp. For the individual citizen, the impact of government is of huge importance, when it is important at all. The great thing about France is that we can learn from it in particular matters because so often things happen in France that—thank God—never actually quite happen in Britain. The French government system is most elitist and authoritarian. The typical Frenchman does not believe that a parliament is capable of defending his interests. Thus when the mob takes to the streets, the people support the mob—which is totally different from the United Kingdom where the people support the government of the day.
In our country, there is confidence in Parliament and still in the Civil Service. It may be eroding but confidence is largely a product of commonsense behaviour. It is the responsibility of those in government—particularly the head of the government of the day—to ensure that standards of behaviour are observed. I have always been a great believer in the need for Ministers to resign when necessary—not because they are necessarily to blame but it gives more power to their successors. When things go wrong, action should be taken. But I do not believe that legislation is needed. The machinery of government is far too complicated to legislate on the lines to which the Motion refers. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's view, if he has one.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Powell of Bayswater: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for taking the initiative in arranging this debate. On an earlier occasion, I declared both my fraternal interests as a special adviser and civil servant. I am probably the most junior ex-civil servant to take part in the debate. I never was a Cabinet Secretary, Permanent Secretary, Chief Executive or anything similar. Maybe that is to the good.
Clearly we will get a Civil Service Act because the Government have committed themselves to having one. It will come eventually. But in their shoes, I would not hurry—especially not to produce a Civil Service Act on the lines suggested in the Motion. Focusing so tightly on clarifying and defining roles smacks to me of the boilermakers union at the height of its powers.

717
Defining roles is a subsidiary issue. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that it is likely to be counter-productive, by setting in concrete something that needs to be flexible. We may end up stifling change instead of encouraging it.
Equally, further important changes are needed in the Civil Service but one does not need legislation that can be done, as it has been done satisfactorily in the past, by executive order.
A number of noble Lords are het up about special advisers. My own experience of them has been almost entirely positive. I found them a lively source of ideas that offered a fresh perspective from outside. 'They helped to insulate civil servants from political pressures by keeping political tasks at bay. Far from seeing special advisers as a threat to the independence of the Civil Service or to our constitutional order, the process of government would probably benefit from having rather more of them.
I would like a higher proportion of special advisers selected for their expertise, rather than just for their political affiliation, and to see them spread more widely through the government machine or process—instead of them all congregating around ministerial private offices, where they can become a centre for skulduggery.
We want to avoid at all costs the French or German model, where a lot of politically affiliated civil servants hang around waiting for their lot to get back into power. I hope that we shall not approach the issue of special advisers from the point of view of limiting and restricting their role but of maximising their usefulness to government.
As to further Civil Service reform, I agree with the views reported in The Times this morning of Sir Andrew Turnbull—the new Cabinet Secretary and my former colleague. We need far more people whose talents and expertise lie in delivering services to the public and project management. Civil servants ought to be given much more responsibility earlier. In my experience, one of the greatest differences is that people outside the Civil Service are given responsibility much sooner and stand or fall by their performance. We need that culture in the Civil Service too, so that poor performers will be dispensed with. Sir Andrew is quoted as saying that the Civil Service cannot be a job for life.
I should like to see time-limited contracts for all appointments at senior civil servant level, with those appointments advertised outside. I have little doubt that my own Civil Service career would have foundered earlier had I needed to meet those requirements. Even so, it is desirable to make changes of that sort. My worry is that by focusing on a Civil Service Act, particularly of the scope proposed, we may be neglecting what is really important and pursing instead a rather legalistic and pedantic approach—which will do nothing much to improve the effectiveness of government.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, who is, not for the first time, a valuable and timely voice for common sense. Finding refuge in the opaque may be amusing and can certainly be clever but it is seldom particularly honourable. That, for me, is the great attraction of a Civil Service Act—not a neurotically rushed Bill but one that offers the possibility of injecting clarity and order into what has become a disorderly and thoroughly negative national obsession.
I do not believe for one moment that we can get the genie back into the bottle, so we have to deal with the situation as we find it. I entirely understand the reservations that have been expressed during the past one and a half hours because, to a degree, I work within the system. But please believe me—even the best arguments against such an Act would strike discord among a public conditioned to accept transparency as the desirable norm.
My limited contribution to this debate is as someone who, for the past five years, has served—to quote the noble Lord, Lord Holme—as one of the "thinly disguised" consultants. Or was it thinly disguised peers? Most of my family would probably agree with the latter. Five years ago today, I entered what was, to me, an alien world of hierarchies, some of them hard to fathom. I met civil servants involved in policy creation, a group involved in policy advice and, well down the totem pole, a larger group involved with policy implementation. It was there, among the untouchables, that I found my natural niche.
What followed has been without doubt the most satisfying and thoroughly enjoyable period of my working life. I have met and worked with remarkable and entirely committed people. For the most part, the people whom I have met in public service could give a real lesson in commitment and decency to the vast majority of the people that I met over 30 years in the private sector.
I work across departments, urging coherence and timeliness to a group of evermore receptive colleagues. I do not recognise for one moment the scenarios painted in the wake of the Jo Moore shambles. I have dealt with remarkable people, who displayed remarkable civility and a remarkable sense of what is best for this country. I am very proud to have worked with them.
I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, when he urges us to stop demonising political advisers. It may sell newspapers but does not serve the objectives of good or effective government.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I do not know whether any Civil Service Act would apply also to the Diplomatic Service, which relies on an entirely separate Order in Council. My own experience as head of the Diplomatic Service for five years was that the relationship between the small handful of special advisers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the career public servants who staff that office and

719
overseas posts was not only unproblematic but that they worked extremely closely together as members of a team. I understand that happy situation still applies, some 11 years later.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for intervening, but in the brief time available I want to deploy some of the arguments for ensuring that the Diplomatic Service continues to operate as a highly effective and professional branch of the public service—and that it receives the necessary resources to cope with the wide and increasing variety of diplomatic, political and commercial challenges that faces it around the world.
I remind the House of the regular support and advice that our 226 overseas posts provide to government and business, by lobbying—often through personal contacts that would not be easily accessible from occasional visits or by long-distance communications; by professional advice that draws on commercial and political expertise, and a good knowledge of the people involved locally at top decision-making levels; and by underpinning the Government's foreign policy work overseas, which has strengthened Britain's reputation abroad and helps to create a climate that promotes the United Kingdom's political, strategic and commercial interests.
I commend this Government for maintaining, as their predecessors have done, a global foreign policy. But an ambitious foreign policy agenda requires adequate resources. I hope, therefore, that the forthcoming spending review will be generous in allotting extra funds for the Diplomatic Service to enable my successors in King Charles Street to retain an effective, and truly global, service.
The three Secretaries of State whom I served as Permanent Under-Secretary—two of whom are Members of this House—will recall the constant necessity to have contingency plans ready for post closures, in case of the need for financial retrenchment. If the Foreign Office had been forced in the last spending review to close any posts, it is easy to imagine that the axe might well have fallen on some in Central Asia, with serious subsequent consequences for our influence and effective diplomacy after the events of 11th September.
I still believe, as strongly as I ever have, that we possess in the Diplomatic Service a uniquely effective tool to promote our interests world-wide. It is also remarkably cost effective. The Foreign Office budget for this year is no more than 0.09 per cent of GDP. I should point out that 87 of our overseas posts have no more than four UK-based staff, and 21 have only one. Even if one includes expenditure on the British Council and on the BBC World Service, the total budget of £1.2 billion is roughly equivalent to the budget of Birmingham City Council.
Even a small amount of money spent now on conflict pre-emption will save much larger sums required later on conflict prevention. Adequate funding for the service is important for British industry and, indeed, for Britain's wider interests, including the
720
consular protection and advice that the service can provide for the 56 million, or so, of our compatriots who now travel overseas each year.
I make no apology for using this debate as an opportunity to remind your Lordships of the vital contribution that the professionalism of this small branch of the public service makes towards global stability. I do not believe that an Act is required for the Diplomatic Service, but I urge the Government to ensure that it continues to receive the resources that it needs.
4.42 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, in his argument about the Diplomatic Service, although my two years as a special adviser in the Foreign Office left me with nothing but admiration for that service and the task that it performs. Similarly, I shall not spend an over-long time congratulating my noble friend Lord Holme on initiating this debate. Indeed, the quality of the debate is congratulation enough. However, when the Minister responds, I hope that he will promise a much longer debate on the subject, and further consultation with the expertise that exists in this House. Although I understand the conventions of the House—as I am sure is the case with the noble Baroness—stamping on, and cutting short, the First Civil Service Commissioner when she was trying to give noble Lords some information earlier reminded me a little of the Labour Party conference giving Dennis Healey four minutes to explain his policy towards the IMF.
When the Labour Government came to power in 1997, it is perhaps worth remembering that the big question was whether the Civil Service was capable of adapting to new masters after 18 years of one-party rule. Most observers have concluded that the service passed that test superbly—something for which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, deserves great credit. In addition to the fears of politicisation, there were concerns that what has been called "the public service ethos" had been weakened by the various initiatives of out-sourcing, privatisation, and market testing that had been undertaken during the Thatcher era.
The latter was one of the aspects that we considered in the Select Committee of this House, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, of which I was a member and which reported in 1998. It is worth repeating our conclusion:
"The evidence we received testified to the high standards of efficiency, integrity, impartiality and intellectual rigour which continue to characterise the Civil Service".
In 1997, this Government inherited a Civil Service, which, although reduced in number, retained both the ethos of public service and a capacity to serve the government of the day. Yet, after five years of Labour Government, there are both criticisms and concerns about the Civil Service and its future direction Which

721
make this debate timely. As the Guardian pointed out in an article headlined "Labour's wear and tear on the Whitehall machine" on 2nd March 2002:
"It should have been a marriage made in heaven. Instead the honeymoon lasted barely months. Long before the Stephen Flyers affair the applause had stopped; now the relationship has become seriously dysfunctional".
It is no use No. 10 Downing Street pretending that there have not been media briefings expressing dissatisfaction at the inability of career civil servants to carry through radical reforms. It is equally pointless to deny that there have not been complaints that political appointees have tried to bully public servants into actions of a political nature.
Of course, there are other factors at work. In his recent, much-publicised, speech on the state of our public service, the outgoing Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, pointed out that today's public servants have to operate in a society less deferential, more service demanding than in earlier generations. It also operates with a far more intrusive media. That is why I cannot agree with the noble Lords, Lord Armstrong, Lord Donoughue, Lord Burns, Lord Marlesford and Lord Powell, who said that a Civil Service Act was not needed.
Just as the City can no longer be governed by an unwritten code that "my word is my bond", or Parliament assume that we are all "honourable" or "noble" and, therefore, in no need of codes of conduct or declarations of interest, so the Civil Service and its values need to be protected and sustained by statutory underpinning and clear codes of conduct for both career civil servants and political appointees.
It is true to say that what had not been anticipated in 1997 was the influx into government, as part of the intake of political advisers, of a new breed of communications experts honed in a much more aggressive "get your retaliation in first" style of media relations. As the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, observed, there were—and are—cultural tensions between career civil servants trained to disseminate information and political activists trained to promote partisan political propaganda Those tensions need to be acknowledged and addressed in codes and legislation. For it is in that grey area between government information and party political propaganda that most problems have arisen.
I believe that there is a broad level of public support for the concept that the Northcote-Trevelyan principles, which have served this country well, should be the bed-rock on which our 21st-century Civil Service is built. I am not sure that there is a need for a statutory limit on the number of special advisers and other outside appointments, as long as other reforms are in place and there is full transparency about what call, and cannot, be done, with the process being kept under regular parliamentary scrutiny.
The interview given by Sir Andrew Turnbull in today's edition of The Times is both a significant and
722
timely contribution to our debate, although I hope that it is not his last on the matter. His comment:
"We have lived without [a Civil Service Act] for 150 years",
as a justification for further delay, sounds to me more like Sir Humphrey than "the mandarin as meritocratic manager" that The Times dubs him. Having listened to today's debate, I believe that this is an idea whose time has come.
Likewise, when Sir Andrew says in the interview that worries about,
"cronyism, the wrong people getting in, people with no merit or claim",
relate to "the battles of yesteryear", I believe that that seriously underestimates the concerns that the Northcote-Trevelyan principles are being undermined by what The Times describes as,
"the clash between the West Wing style of new Labour and the Yes, Prime Minister ethos of the Whitehall establishment".
As I said, I served on the Slynn committee, and I believe that some of its recommendations bear revisiting. It specified a call for a mechanism by which civil servants could, in the public interest, report breaches in the provisions of any Act. It said that a Civil Service Act should include a requirement for an annual report to Parliament. I certainly endorse the call made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for pre-legislative scrutiny of any such Act. It also said that Parliament's views on any prospective significant changes should be taken by the Government.
Today, the Guardian has an article assessing five years of Labour rule. It quotes an anonymous Labour insider as saying:
"If there was a mistake we made it was in not showing how much we value those who work in public services".
The question which I believe this debate raises is: have those lessons been learnt? Can we now embark on a reform of public services which is built on trust and respect for our public servants? And can we bring Parliament fully into that process of reform, which sees freedom of information as part of the fabric of a modern Civil Service and not as a damage-limitation exercise? I believe that the Government have the opportunity to obtain a genuine all-party consensus on a reform of our Civil Service. In Sir Andrew Turnbull's phrase today, it would give us a Civil Service of,
"professional management, professional people and professional tools",
but one which I believe and submit should still be on those old Northcote-Trevelyan principles of merit and political neutrality.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for the extraordinary timeliness of his debate and also for providing in his introduction an overview of a situation which the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, referred to as a matter of public concern and urgency, and which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, called "dangerous". The noble Lord, Lord Holme, has brought together some of the most distinguished

723
public servants in the land in a clarifying debate which, I believe, could not have occurred anywhere but in your Lordships' House, and that is a great tribute to it.
It seems that the Government have achieved a modern miracle: an all-party consensus on a controversial constitutional issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and many other noble Lords on all sides of the House said, statutory protection is now needed for the Civil Service, codifying best practice and laying down ground rules, rights and duties, and so on.
I believe that that consensus has arisen because critics see three problems. The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, concerns publicity or, if one prefers, vanity. Let us consider for a moment the incoming Minister. He is an omniscient being. He has seen the new Jerusalem—a vision of staggering novelty, if only people were sufficiently advanced to grasp it. He needs an advocate or a messenger—someone who can spread the news of his glory far and wide. Instead, what does he find? The classical bureaucracy, where the ideal official, according to Max Weber, conducts his office in,
"a spirit of formalistic impersonality, without hatred or passion, and hence without affection or enthusiasm".
That is not what the Minister requires at all. Enter the special adviser, who provides a magnifying glass so that onlookers can better observe the scale of the Minister's achievement.
Thus it is that half of all the 81 special advisers are now directly involved in communication work and a government press release is issued every four minutes. But let us contrast that approach to publicity with the Civil Service tradition of confidentiality. If the Civil Service had a logo, it would be a light under a bushel. Its rule of thumb is: why say one word when none will do? Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, the stage is set for drama in the cultural clash over publicity.
But that first problem is minor compared with the second, which strikes at the heart of the vital constitutional convention of ministerial responsibility. Most certainly, there are far greater experts than me in the Chamber today, but I am told that the position is quite clear on this. A civil servant's duty is to his Minister. He carries out ministerial instructions and the Minister is answerable in public—that is, here in Parliament—for decisions made in his name. Furthermore, I gather that all decisions made by civil servants, other than those that could be construed as misconduct, are constitutionally expected to be defended by Ministers on behalf of officials who cannot answer publicly for themselves.
But what if officials were themselves perceived as having power? What if they actually did have power? Then, of course, a procedure would have to be put in place so that they became answerable in another place and in your Lordships' House. That, of course, is precisely the problem created by those famous Orders in Council for the two officials in Number 10. Those orders gave authority and, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and my noble friend Lord Campbell said, as
724
did the Public Administration Committee in another place, authority should be followed by accountability to Parliament and its Select Committees.
That brings me to the third problem, before which, I have to say, the first and second problems which I described pale into insignificance. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, described it as the "demi-monde"; that is, the world of units, task forces, tsars, and so on. Many of them are peopled by those who know or are friends of politicians or, even worse, by those who are involved in raising funds for politicians.
In order to address this most sensitive of questions, perhaps your Lordships would forgive a moment of comparative history. As many people say, this Government seem to have moved us closer to a US system. To capture the genius of the US Government, scholars usually turn to the formal clauses of the US's constitution—its separation of powers, its federal system, its Bill of rights and so on.
But, curiously, the US constitution is almost silent about the type of personnel issues which we have been discussing today. Therefore, for example, when John Adams arrived as President, he showed open preference for those of his own political leanings. Jefferson sought to replace federalists with his own partisans. When Andrew Jackson took office in 1829, he found federal offices occupied by political opponents. Therefore, in his first annual message to Congress, he recommended time-limiting official appointments. His concept was simple. He said, "To the victor the spoils". That was the so-called "spoils system", which regarded government office as the peculiar property of a successful political party to be used for its own advantage.
That system caused many problems down the years, and the issue was brought to a head in America early in the first Eisenhower Administration when, by executive order, the President created "Schedule C" and transferred to it all positions of,
"a confidential or policy-determining character".
Many career officials with long and honourable records left federal service in America the next day.
The President justified his action, saying that the posts vacated should be filled by people who sympathised with his policies and were called upon to defend them. But, to critics, the move was reminiscent of the patronage and spoils system of old.
Today, the harshest critics say that we have arrived at, or are getting closer to, such a patronage system in Britain. I shall not go as far as that today but only because of my genuine sympathy for the occupants of Number 10 on whom descends a remorseless, 24-hour, round the clock, seven-day-a-week pressure from the media from the first day that they arrive in office. For them, it is war.
I also have great sympathy for them because it is clear from this debate that the difficulties arise not from the behaviour of particular individuals but from the uniquely unwritten nature of our constitution. There is no fundamental legal document to which

725
officials and advisers can refer which contains a statement of their organisation and their responsibilities.
As many noble Lords have said, things have gone too far in the wrong direction. I would say, although I do not know whether the Minister will agree, that the present arrangements are not good for Ministers because they begin to look too clever by half; they are not good for the country either. As the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said, it adds to cynicism about our institutions.
I hope that the Minister will say why he considers that this rare consensus of all the parties has been achieved on the need for change. I am afraid that so much damage has been done to confidence that we now need legislation to solve the problem.
5 p.m.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for initiating this important debate. Like other noble Lords, I have been impressed by the breadth of experience and the weight of authority deployed in this debate. Clearly, too many points have been raised for me to do justice to them all at the Dispatch Box, but I shall certainly respond by letter as appropriate. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Holme, immediately on one of his central concerns regarding this Government's intentions. The Labour Party's manifesto of last year stated:
"Our Civil Service is world renowned for its independence. Labour is committed to maintaining the political impartiality of the Civil Service".
I assure noble Lords that this Government are totally committed to maintaining a non-political, permanent Civil Service.
Much of the theme running through today's discussion is consistent with the aims and objectives of the modernising and reforming programme that is already in our Civil Service. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, I did not detect an overwhelming consensus in the House. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I heard caution expressed by noble Lords, such as the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey, Lord Powell and Lord Marlesford and even the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I also heard direct opposition to the idea of a simple Act being expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue, Lord Burns and Lord Armstrong. Of course, there may have been a weight in favour of legislation, but it is clear to me that this important debate should continue.
Like many noble Lords I welcome the contribution made by Sir Andrew Turnbull who said this morning that he wanted to see greater movement in and out of the Civil Service. I believe that that will benefit not only the Civil Service but also the private and wider public sectors and the individuals inside the Civil Service. Like the noble Lord, Lord Powell, I appreciated the emphasis that Sir Andrew appeared to place on the need for greater accountability and incentive.
726
We have heard wise, if conflicting, counsel on the need for legislation. As has been said many times, the debate is timely. It is an important contribution to a debate that is already under way on the future of the Civil Service. I remind noble Lords of how much work is being done in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, implied in his thoughtful contribution, as he reviewed the history of this debate, that there had been a space that now is increasingly filled by committees that are busy with analysis and recommendations on greater accountability.
The process is being taken forward, for example, by the inquiry currently being conducted by the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the roles of special advisers and other civil servants. The Government welcome the committee's consultation paper that has just been issued as a positive contribution to the debate about the future of the Civil Service. The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee also continues to take an active role in contributing to the debate and Members of this House continue to take an active interest in these issues. Their views will help to inform the way forward.
Sir Richard Wilson set out his thoughts in a speech in March, as referred to by a number of noble Lords, and today Sir Andrew Turnbull, his successor, has set out his views. We have heard from the First Civil Service Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. The noble Baroness and the other commissioners are playing a major role in influencing the debate and the Government are grateful to them for that. I should not overlook the role of the Civil Service trade unions. They are also participating in this wide-ranging debate.
An important discussion is already under way. As we move towards the next stages, we want to consider all the views carefully. In the meantime, the existence of a clear published framework for Civil Service activity in the form of a Civil Service code, the Civil Service management code and other key guidance documents, set out clearly for Parliament and the public the framework inside which the Civil Service works.
The Government believe that the existing framework of rules and safeguards works well and continues to be rigorously applied. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, some central, important issues were addressed in the report of the Select Committee of this House. I emphasise that in January 1998 the House of Lords Select Committee on Public Service, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, concluded:
"The evidence we have received has shown that the current Civil Service has coped in the highest traditions of the Civil Service with the change of Government which occurred in May 1997. We have also received much evidence testifying to the continuing high standards of efficiency, integrity, impartiality and intellectual rigour which characterise the Civil Service. We pay tribute to the Civil Service for maintaining these qualities so well".
I believe that they are being maintained well today.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life visited issues relating to the Civil Service in both its first and sixth reports and I commend those reports to the

727
House. That committee is currently considering the issue of legislation for the Civil Service as part of its inquiry, "Defining the Boundaries within the Executive: Ministers, special advisers and the permanent Civil Service". The committee asks:
"How could a Civil Service Act help define the boundaries between Ministers, special advisers and permanent civil servants?"
Therefore, we are in the middle of an interesting and constructive debate. The Government will take the committee's conclusions and recommendations into account in determining the way forward.
Noble Lords would not expect me to be able to give a detailed timetable of moves towards deciding a timetable for legislation. I stress that there is no crisis. Sir Andrew Turnbull is right. We have managed pretty well for 150 years and I have no doubt that we shall continue to manage well in the absence of a crisis.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. In his eloquent overview of the discussion taking place, so far he has omitted to mention when the Government will publish the discussion paper or issues paper to which they have repeatedly committed themselves and which we were told was imminent. That would focus the discussion. Although I take on board his constitutional strictures that he will not tell us the date of the publication of a Bill, presumably he can tell the House when the issues paper is to be published.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, today's debate will help to formulate government thinking on this important issue, as will other debates and inquiries that are taking place. As is self-evident today, we are in the process of handing over from one Cabinet Secretary to another. The context in which Sir Andrew has placed this debate is surely the sensible historical context. There is no crisis. It is clear from the contributions that have been made today how deep, complex and important are the issues. Therefore, I counsel noble Lords to follow me in my argument that we can debate these issues in a number of forms to our mutual advantage and we can come up with recommendations through those discussions that will help to take the whole matter forward. I assure the House that the comments made today will be carefully considered when approaching the next stage of the process.
I turn to the question of the special advisers. We would not put my noble friend Lord Puttnam in that category, though his advice has always been special given the depth of his commercial experience. I am sure we were all moved by the deeply-felt tribute that he paid to Civil Service integrity. The noble Lord, Lord Wright, commented on the professionalism of his former civil servants, though I take it that any legislation that might emerge would affect only the Home Civil Service and would not cover that area. But if that was special pleading, it was of a very elegant and persuasive nature.
728
I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that we must stop demonising the special advisers. My noble friend Lord Lipsey is right in talking about a very "febrile" atmosphere recently. When I look behind me and see the worldly face of my noble friend Lord Donoughue, I realise it is a debate and demonisation extending over 30 years. My noble friend handled it very well back in his professional capacity and put it in the right context for us today.
Civil Service advisers clearly cause concern that this is leading to a politicisation of the Civil Service. From my ministerial experience in three jobs, that has not been my impression. Much more influential in this debate has been the impression given by noble Lords with far greater experience of the Civil Service who appear to give some support to the view that special advisers are not new. That was recognised in the Wicks committee's Issues and Questions paper. They have always been a source of controversy. I noted wryly the other day that Sir John Nott, in his ministerial recollections, was saying that there had been terrible problems with a certain special adviser—Bernard Ingham—and with his boss who seemed to be obsessed with "spin". I had a powerful sense of déjä vu on reading that.
What noble Lords have said today echoes in large part the sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which said,
"We believe that special advisers have a valuable role to play, precisely because they are free to act and advise in a way that a politically impartial civil servant cannot".
We have heard concern expressed about the number of special advisers there are. When in opposition we made no secret of the fact that we would have a strong centre to provide political focus and drive to the work of this Administration. That is what we have tried to do since 1997. But, again for perspective, let us remember the arithmetic. We are talking about 81 special advisers inside a Senior Civil Service of 3,500. We are firmly committed to maintaining a nonpolitical role for the Civil Service.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, asks for greater clarity in the respective roles of special advisers and civil servants. That is one of the issues we can put on the agenda for this extensive debate today. But we have been open about the numbers, the costs of special advisers and their duties and responsibilities. It was this Government who published for the first time ever a Model Contract for Special Advisers and a code of conduct for them. The contract and the code of conduct are explicit and public about the role of special advisers, a transparency that was not available under previous administrations. I make no party political point here. It was acknowledged in the third report of the Public Administration Select Committee which stated,
"For the first time ever a specific code for special advisers has been drawn up; it now applies to all Whitehall advisers … The Committee welcomes the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers as a clear statement of the role of advisers and a helpful strengthening of the protection provided to the neutrality of civil servants".
If the noble Baroness or other noble Lords believe that there are contradictions that have been overlooked, let us address them in the coming debate.

729
We have heard remarkably few anxieties expressed today in relation to the politicisation of the permanent Civil Service, no doubt again a testimony to the experience of the many noble Lords who have contributed. But the appointment of special advisers recognises that there is inevitably a political dimension to a Minister's work. By clearly distinguishing political advice and support from that provided by the official machine, we are ensuring that the key principles of an impartial Civil Service are upheld. Sir Richard Wilson recently, in evidence to the Neill committee, said that he did not think that a Senior Civil Service of 3,500 people was in danger of being swamped by special advisers. That is not what is happening. He did not see a "creeping politicisation".
Clearly, special advisers have an important role to play and it must be complementary to the work of the permanent Civil Service. I am delighted to see that Jonathan 13aume of the First Division Association, again in evidence to Neill, echoed that by saying that his members say that,
"a good Special Adviser is well worth having in any department. It is also fair to say that this government has used its Special Advisers in a much more up-front way. A good Special Adviser",
as many noble Lords have said,
"is an asset in a department, both to the Minister and the Civil Service".
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, was concerned about whistle-blowing and appeals mechanisms. Well established processes are already in place. Grievance procedures are set out in the Civil Service code. They provide for an independent line of appeal to the independent Civil Service commissioners. In addition, the code of conduct for special advisers provides a mechanism for civil servants to complain to the head of the Home Civil Service or to the First Civil Service Commissioner about the activities of a special adviser. The Public Interest Disclosure Act, which the Government introduced, also applies to civil servants, including special advisers.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, asked about the training of Ministers in many of these obscure mechanisms. I have no doubt that that could be improved. But we have an effective centre for management and policy studies which, he will be pleased to hear, I attend regularly—as do many of my colleagues—for tutorials in the art of better government.
The question of the two appointments was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He has asked me previously and I confirm again that two civil servants have been appointed under the Civil Service Order with executive powers: Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell. The noble Lord asked whether the number would remain at two. As another noble Lord said, the order put in place an ability for three to be appointed. So far as I am aware, there are no plans to appoint a third and the number will therefore remain at two. I trust the noble Lord will accept that we have no ardent plans for the politicisation of the Civil Service in that direction.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. In the code of conduct for
730
special advisers which he mentioned, there is a very important statement that they should not be responsible for the line management of permanent civil servants, including their recruitment and matters covered by their contract of employment. So that was already in the code.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I believe that section 3·3 of the code gives the three posts in question executive powers over civil servants. That is a difference between Powell and Campbell at present and the other special advisers.
Conscious of the time, let me just say that there are other ways to bring in outsiders to try and enhance the Civil Service. They can be hired as permanent civil servants under the 12-month rule. There is a debate on how that process might be improved. Let that, too, be on our agenda.
A question was asked about the politicisation of the Civil Service through the involvement of Alastair Campbell with the COI. The chief executive of the COI remains fully accountable to Cabinet Office Ministers for the work of the COI. COI Ministers are accountable to Parliament. Individual departments remain responsible for individual advertising and publicity campaigns following a recommendation of the quinquennial review of the COI. The chief executive now has an additional role as a government chief adviser on market and communications and information campaigns. She reports to the director of communications at No. 10.
On the question of money, in real terms the spend on the COI—which in my experience is almost wholly benign—is about equal to what it was in the mid-1980s.
To conclude, the Government welcome the comments made today as a comprehensive, thoughtful and positive contribution to the debate about the future of the Civil Service. In particular, we welcome cross-party support for the key principles underpinning the role of the Civil Service and for our modernisation and reform programme. A wide-ranging debate is under way in a number of areas to which we have made an important contribution today.
We shall reflect on the contributions made by noble Lords and take them into account in the next stage of the process.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, for his reply. As I gave him notice of my question about the Central Office of Information and the dramatic increase in expenditure before the last election, perhaps he will write to me with whatever explanation the Government can find for that level of expenditure—not over time but in that immediate pre-election period.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. As the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Saatchi, have said, it has been an extraordinarily rich debate because of the experience and perspectives of so many noble Lords. I am extremely grateful to all those

731
who took part. I kept a rough score, just to help the Minister. Of those who expressed a view, it was roughly three to one in favour of a Civil Service Act. But of course that is not the point. The point is that the Government promised a Civil Service Act in their manifesto.
I was slightly disappointed that the Minister could not even tell us when the Government's issue paper that is to precede the Act will be published. If I may say so, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, his little passage dealing with that matter was worthy of Sir Humphrey. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Higher Education
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Underclifferose to call attention to the work of universities in widening participation, as set out in Universities UK's report Social Class and Participation in Higher Education; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in introducing this debate, I want to bring to the attention of the House the wonderful work being done by universities across the UK to widen participation. In doing so, I should declare an interest as chief executive of Universities UK. Perhaps I may say how much I appreciate the fact that many noble Lords will be speaking in the debate, many of them with extensive experience of higher education. I look forward to their contributions with anticipation.
In many ways, this debate follows up several of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, raised in his debate last week—in which I was unfortunately unable to speak. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for seeking to give higher education a second bite of the cherry so soon afterwards.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, I want to welcome the words of my right honourable friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech two weeks ago, when he acknowledged the need for investment in higher education. Universities UK hopes that when he announces the results of his spending review in July, he will follow up on his commitment with hard cash.
One specific area in which I know that my right honourable friend takes a keen interest and which is one of the top 10 priorities for the Government in their second term is widening participation. I want to talk today about the vital work done on that by universities. That work is highlighted in Universities UK's recently published report, Social Class and Participation in Higher Education. For both that report and its 1998 predecessor, From Elitism to Inclusion, we are indebted among others to Professor Maggie Woodrow. Professor Woodrow was a tireless campaigner for widening participation until her untimely death in October last year.
732
What does the report do? It identifies good practice and evaluates the strategies of both the higher education sector and the Government in widening participation. It provides hard evidence on what works best successfully to increase participation among young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. By drawing on 23 case studies, such as the partners programme at the University of Newcastle, the report shows how targeted initiatives by individual institutions are contributing to the social inclusion agenda. Nine of those studies are entirely new and some concentrate for the first time on high-demand subject areas such as medicine and the creative arts.
Without exception, every university and higher education college in the UK is working hard to widen participation. We should be proud of their hard work. They have employed not just lone individuals but teams of dedicated staff on that work. It is not done as an afterthought but is a mainstream activity in all institutions.
Perhaps I may spend a few minutes explaining why that is so. For too long, not all those who could benefit from a university education have had the chance to go to university. That has been a tremendous waste of talent. That lack of opportunity has prevented both the individuals concerned from realising their full potential and the nation from tapping into that potential. As one of the academics at the launch of our publication, herself involved in a scheme in inner London, said, our report is,
"a celebration of unlocking the potential of many people who would not traditionally have accessed higher education".
It is illuminating to consider some specific illustrations of what higher education institutions are doing. Nottingham Trent University has developed progression partnerships—a programme that featured in the first report. I am happy to say that its combination of compacts with local schools and support programmes in the Nottingham area has led to a demonstrable increase in recruitment from those same schools.
The Guy's, King's and St Thomas's School of Medicine is working to widen access to medical courses—an area where access for students from less affluent backgrounds has in the past been especially low. The school of medicine has liaised closely with local schools in south London; provided summer courses for new students; developed new course structures; and provided support to students.
That work is not confined to England, although in other parts of the UK responsibility for such activities is now devolved. For example, the Glasgow School of Art is aiming to increase by 10 per cent the number of students from non-traditional backgrounds that it recruits to study art—another area often perceived to be largely a middle class pursuit.
Universities are also working to ensure that the courses that they offer are relevant and exciting to students, which after all is vital if we are to persuade potential students that they have something to gain from university. I urge noble Lords not to underestimate the huge transformation in what

733
employers, the professions and students now make clear that they want from universities. A good example is the degree in surf science and technology at Plymouth University, which is meeting the needs of local business—it enjoys sponsorship from industry to prove it—and produces graduates with knowledge of areas as diverse as oceanic science, materials technology and business studies.
I use that modern example deliberately, because it is precisely such degrees that are criticised and derided because they sound untraditional by those who hanker after some mythical golden past. Yet it is rigorously academically assessed, attracts excellent students and fulfils a real need. There are many similar examples. Noble Lords associated with universities will know from their experience how frustrating are such criticisms.
Perhaps I should return to the report. It makes clear that the goals of widening and of increasing participation are not necessarily one and the same. As the Government have made clear, it is not enough simply to increase the number of students entering higher education. It has been argued that the target could be achieved by attracting more people from the same sort of background as we attract at present. We must also target more people from less affluent backgrounds who have not previously believed that university was the right option—or even an available option—for them.
The report also makes it clear that the existing mechanisms for student support need review, a fact that the Prime Minster rightly recognised in his party conference speech last year. I am glad to say that he acted on the matter by setting up the current review. I hope that the results of that review will be known soon and that it targets support where it is needed—those who are the focus of the case studies in the report.
We all recognise that the key to widening participation lies in motivating and inspiring young people in our schools. That is why so many of our institutions have compact agreements and other close links with schools in their area. For example, the Government's Aimhigher campaign is an excellent initiative. It brings together schools and universities to motivate and inspire young people to think about the benefits of going to university. Our battle is in schools; we must win the hearts and minds of our young people.
It is also important that we do not forget the role of further education colleges. If we are to meet the 50 per cent participation target, the further development of links between universities and further education colleges is vital. It is through such links that many students will find their way through to higher education. People working in both sectors are striving to achieve that.
Your Lordships will have come to expect me to say that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Widening participation costs money. All those efforts are likely to produce at least 30,000 extra students each and every year. The 17,000 extra members of staff needed to teach the extra students must be paid. A report to be published next week by the Universities and Colleges
734
Employers Association will set out in stark terms the costs of staff recruitment and retention in higher education and the cost of not meeting that bill. There is recognition in all quarters that to recruit and retain non-traditional students and transfer them effectively into work or further study means additional costs. Those costs make up a significant part of the total bid for the next three years—almost £10 billion—that we have submitted to the Government in this spending round.
I shall give your Lordships one example of those additional costs. The access premium and the way in which it targets resources are critical to change. We have argued in our submission to the spending review that it should be increased to at least 20 per cent. In fact, the results of a pilot study by Universities UK and HEFCE into the real costs of widening access, which are due to be published soon, show that the extra costs of widening access are about £1,500 per student for the two institutions featured. That is a cost premium for them of roughly 35 per cent, as opposed to the 20 per cent figure identified and recommended in a report last year by the Select Committee on Education and Employment in another place.
Of course, all universities are concerned to ensure that our students, whatever their background, have a high quality experience at university. That requires university teaching to be informed by research, provided by high quality and motivated staff. Students must work in buildings fit for the purpose and use equipment comparable to that found in their eventual workplace. We would not want to encourage more students from less well-off backgrounds to enter higher education only for them to be deprived of a first-class education when they got there.
The Government must invest in all those areas. As our submission to the spending review makes clear, it would be investment for success, not only success in reaching the 50 per cent target by 2010 or in widening participation, but the future success of an increasingly diverse student population. That investment will be worth it. The engagement of the students with the world as socially responsible, economically active and enthusiastic members of society will result in nothing less than the continued success of our civilised, knowledge-based economy.
Everyone is trying to reach out to those who, in the past, have not had a chance to benefit from higher education. Last century, the Swiss psychologist, lean Piaget, said:
"The principal goal of education is to create people who are capable of doing new things, not simply of repeating what other generations have done".
It is vital that we do not make the mistake of earlier generations and fail to harness the full potential of all those who could benefit from going to university. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, it must be galling for the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, a devoted supporter of the Government, to find that

735
many of the reports produced by her Universities UK do not support her as she might wish. Universities UK has identified a huge funding gap in teaching and research, and the Government have not filled it. The noble Baroness indicated in her concluding words that the document that she has produced today is a menu without prices. She expects a huge amount of money, but I do not expect for one moment that the Government will provide it.
The Government's policy for our universities is a mess. It is riddled with political correctness and hypocrisy, and it is beginning to wreak real damage on our universities. The first mistake was to set the target of 50 per cent participation by 2010. I set a participation rate of 30 per cent in 1990. I chose that figure because, in developed countries, the most effective universities are in countries with a participation rate of about 30 per cent. France is an example of how mass high education can make a mess of things. In that country, there is a participation rate of 58 per cent. That is why so many French students now come to British universities and why few overseas students go to French universities. There are classes of 500 and tutorial groups of 50. Half the students who go to French universities fail their first degree, and there is a huge drop-out rate.
Mass higher education inevitably means massive drop-out rates. It is already happening in the UK. There was a drop-out rate of 41 per cent at the University of North London last year, 33 per cent at Thames Valley and South Bank and 31 per cent at Bolton. Why is it happening? It is too easy to say that it is because students must contribute to the cost of their education. A really committed student will stick to the course. Our clearing system pushes many students who do not get onto the course that they had wanted into undersubscribed courses that they do not want. It is little wonder that so many leave. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said in his debate the other day, we need a massive expansion of further education in this country—as the noble Baroness said, it could be linked in some cases to higher education—to produce practical, vocational training. Thus we will avoid the drop-out rate.
The Government's policy is hypocritical. They have decided that more pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds should go to our leading universities. I do not object to that as a social objective, rather than an educational objective. I was the first generation of my family to go to university. However, we should recognise what Oxford, Cambridge, University College, Imperial College and the LSE are doing to attract more disadvantaged pupils.
The Government should not ask why top universities do not take more students from disadvantaged backgrounds: they should ask why so many secondary schools fail to produce students with the right qualifications and ambitions who want to go to those universities. Graduates and undergraduates are not created by government decree or by bullying; they are created by the quality of the education that the child experiences from the age of five. That is where the
736
Government so frequently fall down. The universities have not failed. They should not be named and shamed by Margaret Hodge and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Graduates are not made by government decree; they are made by improving the system of secondary education.
Margaret Hodge, Minister for Higher Education, recently said that she wants the top universities to take in students even if they do not have the appropriate qualifications. I am only pleased that Margaret Hodge is not in charge of the selection of the English soccer team! As your Lordships know, the English Soccer team is totally socially unrepresentative of our country. There are no pupils from private schools, grammar schools or city technology colleges in the team. Why should they not be put there in order to give them the opportunity to represent their country and to earn massive sums of money? Fortunately, that will not happen but it is the read-across to another area of activity.
It is ironic that only this week the universities of Manchester, Birmingham and Warwick have opened up a selling office in Seoul, South Korea, in order to attract more overseas students from that country. The Government fully support that policy because there are 17,000 South Korean students at our universities. However, let us think for a moment what that means. Parents from South Korea will be able to buy places for their children at British universities. Those children do not come from disadvantaged backgrounds but from highly privileged backgrounds, fully supported by the Government. Provided that one is not British, if one can afford it one can be asked to pay. Therefore the parents in South Korea are to be given the opportunity denied to parents in Southend, Southport and Southampton. Therein lies the hypocrisy of this Government.
A fundamental review is needed of the funding of universities. I want to see the return of our universities being genuinely independent private institutions with little or no government interference. That means top-up fees and substantial tax breaks to establish scholarship funds. However, I would like to see those return because I would trust the universities to make a better job of running themselves than the Government running them.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that as soon as "5" appears on the clock the time is taken and that there are many speakers on the list.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this morning at the LSE's open day I spent two hours talking to potential students and came face to face with the sensitivity of this issue. I was asked by a suspicious young man whether it really is true that my department offers A, B, B as its conditional offer. With 20 applications per place, clearly many students did not believe that. We do that because we like to have good

737
students from state schools who may not have been as well taught as the many students from private schools who apply.
I stood there looking at 200 students, many of them from private schools and extremely self-confident. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in saying that many of them were children of the international élite, born elsewhere, and sent at the age of 16 to English public schools to attain the A-levels or international baccalaureate which will get them into British universities. I recognise that we are in a highly competitive world. Indeed, we are operating against the whole bias of a British school system in which middle-class parents invest between £50,000 and £100,000 in their children between the ages of five and 18 in order to get them into good universities. The people who do that are precisely those middle-class Mail and Times readers who are the target voters for new Labour.
I remember that when I was teaching at the University of Oxford The Times published an article on Oxford attempting in its application process to take into account the nature of the school students attended. I remember being almost physically attacked by one of the people living in my street who was paying a great deal of money for his children to attend St Paul's and who thought that the measure was a gross invasion of the investment he was making and that it was being denied by government policy.
Let us recognise that part of the problem of social balance, particularly in our better universities, is that we are trying to swim against a very strong tide. I agree that universities should pursue an active policy of attracting students from disadvantaged groups and I am happy that the London School of Economics does so, among other things. We have Saturday schools and links with special schools and we attempt to look out for bright children from disadvantaged regions as we go through our applications.
My doubts about what the Government have been doing relate to the multiplication of targets and special funding schemes and envelopes which make university funding and management more complex. I remember the vice-chancellor complaining two years ago about receiving an invitation to apply for a competitive scheme to run summer schools with a six-week deadline before it closed and having to ask himself whether it was worth devoting a huge amount of resources to a competition in which half the applicants would fail. That is not sensible. Universities are promoting a range of schemes: summer schools, Saturday schools, links to schools in target areas, sixth-form colleges and further education colleges.
We should also recognise that the suggestion that we may move towards a comprehensive university in which FE colleges and universities may merge—the universities of Bradford and Central England are discussing that at present—should help considerably in breaking down some of the barriers between sixth-form colleges, further education colleges and universities.
738
However, we must recognise the diversity of universities and the role of local and regional universities which are, as one of the studies indicates, attracting students who are more likely to go to universities if they can stay at home, particularly if they are young Asian women, than if they are asked to travel abroad. I suggest that universities need to be encouraged to develop their own scholarship and bursary schemes. I regret that for so long the Treasury rules limited the ability of universities to award scholarship funds to students from poorer backgrounds if they were not to lose their Treasury-assisted means-tested grants.
I encourage politicians of all parties to remind successful graduates that they have a moral responsibility to contribute to their universities for funds for those who would like to follow. However, there are limits to what universities can do on their own. Time and time again we find ourselves making remedial work for failures of under-funded schools. I note from the Birmingham report that the university recognises that achievement cannot be measured in isolation from environment. It is stated at the beginning of the report that:
"The raising of aspirations is an important component of widening participation. Years 11 and 12 in school are relatively late".
Many of the problems we have of widening access to universities lie in our schools—in our sixth-forms and earlier—and not in our universities.
I saw that clearly in the state school which my children attended in London and I have seen it time and time again in schools in Bradford. The most important issues are the low expectations of young students and poor attitudes to learning. The answers lie in improving access not only in the universities but in the foundations of our state school system as such.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I congratulate Universities UK on producing the report on which we base the debate. When the committee I chaired on higher education reported in 1997, its first recommendation was to expand higher education, particularly in institutions of further education. We saw that as the core of the matter. Its next five recommendations were about widening participation because we felt it was right socially to do so and because we are aware of the low levels of participation.
I am pleased that much has been done to encourage wider participation, notably by the universities and of course by the Government. However, despite all that effort, I read in a report published by the National Audit Office only a few months ago that,
"increases in participation by all social classes have left the poorer social classes filling the same share of the student population".
We have run hard to stand still.
The primary obstacles to wider participation identified by the National Audit Office are early disengagement with education and an associated lack of entry qualifications; poorer educational opportunities; a lack of confidence that higher

739
education is the right course for the students; and difficulties over financial support. In short, we must surmount the problem by raising achievement and aspirations and overcoming the financial hazard. In that respect, I return to the report of Universities UK in which we see that,
"Changes in student support have been regressive, and a disincentive to participation".
That relates to the decision taken in 1997.
Earlier this year, the Cambridge University Press published an article by Professor Claire Callender of the University of the South Bank on the subject. Again, I shall quote from it because these figures shook me:
"Between 1989 and 2001, the amount of state subsidy going to a low income student fell by about 35 per cent, but only by 2·5 per cent for a student from a high income family".
I commend those figures for consideration and verification by the Government.
One of the strengths of our universities, identified in another report from the National Audit Office, is their low drop-out rates. We must sustain that record. But there is a close correlation between drop-out rates and entry levels of achievement. We cannot solve the problem of widening participation at the expense of diminished preparedness to engage with the cost of drop-out rates of, say, 20 per cent. That is not the answer.
The main answer to the problem lies in raising achievement before the student applies for a university place. I want to make one major point about this. For many years we have traded—I use that word with some anxiety in front of the economists present in the House—on a falling marginal cost curve. The unit-of-resource cost has fallen by 40 per cent. However, that curve is now moving upwards, as one expands production and begins to use resources that are less well prepared; in other words, in the effort to widen participation, we are now taking into higher education those who are less well prepared. There is a cost to be met. The Government must grasp the point that the cost curve is rising and that increased participation cannot be done on the cheap.
I do not wish to undermine the vigour of my remarks by making the hundred other points that could be made on this subject. I rest my case.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, the document from Universities UK tells a powerful and moving story. It made me feel proud to be a university teacher; I have been one all my working life. The report covers an enormous range of institutions, some research orientated and some situated in the inner cities. However, what all those institutions are trying to do is to assess the potential of their students. In my view, that is why the comparison made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, between Margaret Hodge and Sven Goran Ericsson is not particularly sound.
740
A number of features in the report struck me. First, the idea of access is being built into the corporate approach of all the universities. That idea is as important as the idea of enterprise, which was being built into the culture of universities when I was a vice-chancellor. A positive approach to wider access should be taken up by all vice-chancellors, by members of staff, who should not be afraid of lowering standards and, indeed, by students. It is worth noting that the students themselves can play an important role in encouraging access to, for example, the Oxford Target scheme.
Secondly, the report highlights collaboration between universities and other institutions. In the past our universities were far too isolationist. Now we have examples such as the Medway campus, created by the University of Greenwich and neighbouring institutions. It is a splendid initiative. However, when turning to the position in Wales, the notion that the University of Wales, which facilitates co-operation, should in any way be broken up or defederated strikes me as being totally reactionary.
Thirdly, increased access must be seen as a long-term strategy. My noble friend Lady Warwick pointed out that the work must begin in the schools, such as in the Compact programmes being run in Swansea and Glamorgan, where the aspirations and progress of 13 and 14 year-olds are studied. A prolonged process of special tuition, special monitoring and special counselling has been instituted. However, as other noble Lords have pointed out, there is a problem of retention as people lose their way and their motivation.
A further inevitable consequence is that there will be increasing costs. I hope that the Government will take seriously the call made again by my noble friend Lady Warwick for extra payments. Increased university access is a special need that requires special funding. I know that the University of Glamorgan spends £1 million on premium funding, along with a further £630,000 on widening access. That university has received Special Objective 1 funding from Europe; not all institutions will enjoy that particular benefit.
The report also points out how we should look sympathetically at what the universities are trying to do. Many institutions have to deal with extremely difficult social problems which go far beyond the scope of university life. We read of the London Guildhall University in the City of London, which has introduced a special scheme to increase recruitment among the Bangladeshi, Turkish and Somali communities living in situations of long-term environmental and social decay in that area of London. Many such universities are precisely those suffering from financial difficulties. They are heavily in debt. Indeed, the London Guildhall, even with its outstanding vice-chancellor, will have to cease functioning in its present form and merge with the University of North London. However, one hopes that that move will release extra resources.
Other organisations must respond to what the universities are doing. The Universities UK document indicates that employers have been slow to respond

741
and that the same is true of professional organisations. The buck has to stop with those groups as well; it cannot stop with the universities alone. Of course the Government must help. We have heard about the need for extra funding and the need to address issues on student finance. Funding councils certainly have to change their approach. We are told that we have a diverse university system, but the funding system for higher education tends towards uniformity and thus places a huge burden of debt on the new universities, many of which are making a special and distinguished contribution to wider access.
The last point I wish to make in the time available is simply this: access depends on university staff. It is crucial that they should be encouraged. They should not be treated in the way that other public sector workers have sometimes been treated: chastised by Thatcherites for being unproductive and chastised by New Labour for being elitist, a term which I hope will now disappear into the dustbin of history for all time.
On page 8 the document mentions the Laura Spence affair. That is a gross calumny on my university, the University of Oxford, on Magdalen College and on the medical faculty. There has been no adequate apology at all. The Minister is a distinguished educationalist and I hope that he will acknowledge that this is quite untrue. University lecturers perform a crucial role. Without them, we shall have an under-educated and divided society.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I, too, welcome this debate. I should declare an interest as an academic. I wish to touch briefly on what my own university, the University of Hull, is doing to widen participation—drawing on the points made in the Universities UK report—before addressing the wider implications for higher education of increasing student numbers. In particular I wish to reiterate a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, himself a distinguished graduate of the University of Hull.
My own university has adopted a whole-institution approach in seeking to widen participation. It has involved members from the senior management down. It has established a Learning Partnerships Office to work with partners within and beyond the university. It has developed various programmes and initiatives to raise aspirations. We run summer schools. We lay on ACE days—Aiming for a College Education—bringing over 2,000 local school children on to the campus to address misconceptions about higher education and to encourage continuation in education.
We work with others such as Excellence in Cities to provide the Achievers in Excellence programme for gifted and talented children. A number of departments, including my own, lay on conferences, targeting participation from individuals or schools from Widening Participation postcode areas or with low attainment levels.
The university has also placed an emphasis on student retention and meeting the needs of nontraditional students. Our experience reinforces that of
742
the case studies set out in the Universities UK report. We have found that students from less well-off backgrounds have similar needs to traditional students. However, where those needs differ is in respect of other non-traditional students such as mature students. We have created posts to assist with the needs of part-time students as well as providing flexible learning opportunities. I should add that we are already very successful at retaining students. As the Minister will know, the University of Hull is among the top four universities in terms of student retention.
That is a very brief summary. I relate it in order to establish that the university takes widening participation extremely seriously and is devoting substantial resources to achieving it.
However, the more one widens participation, the greater the burden placed on universities. Over the past few years more students have been admitted while demand for places has decreased. There is consequently a qualitative as well as a quantitative change in the student body. It is not only a question of numbers but also the type of education that is provided. There are significant resource implications. Universities are being asked to do more but without being provided with the resources necessary to maintain standards of excellence. This is clear from the report and from what has been said already in the debate.
However, there is a danger of seeing the problem in isolation. The burden on universities has to be seen in the context of other demands being made of them. I have drawn attention before in your Lordships' House to the growing burden of bureaucracy. Academics are finding that they have less time now to research and to teach. They are drowning under a sea of paperwork. Academics are now over-regulated while, at the same time, being under-valued, under-paid and under-resourced. It is no wonder that morale is at such a low point. There is a problem not only of student retention but of staff retention.
There has to be a fundamental review of student finance. The present method is deterring students from all backgrounds. However, there needs also to be a fundamental review of the relentless growth of regulation and the under-resourcing of universities that is undermining our capacity to deliver a quality education. If more and more students are to receive a good education, of the kind that we have been able to provide in the past, we have to ensure that universities have the capacity to deliver it.
I conclude by putting two important questions to the Minister. First, what does the Minister think should be the basis on which more students are admitted to universities? Should it be the achievement of a certain minimum qualification or should it be on the basis of what benefit the student will derive from higher education? Secondly, what are the Government doing to look holistically at the problems facing our universities? Both, in different ways, are fundamental questions and I look forward to the Minister's response.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Warwick, both for initiating the debate and for the excellent report which got it under way. I begin by declaring an interest: I have, for a number of years, been privileged to serve as Chancellor of the University of Sunderland.
During last Wednesday's debate on education my noble friend Lord Bragg referred to the fact that,
"universities are now a major driving force in increasing the competitiveness of this country".—[Official Report, 24/4/02; col. 288.]
I unequivocally share that sentiment. As I said at the time, we find ourselves operating in a globalised economy in which, if we are to have any chance of remaining competitive, we have to invest in people—that is, the professionals, supported by technology and other expertise, who will help deliver the quality of graduates that we so desperately need.
But as well as investing in people and resources we also need to ensure that we are drawing on all the talents of all the people of this country, whatever their social class, whatever the income of their families, whatever their cultural background. That is one reason why the Universities UK report is such a
genuinely important document.
The University of Sunderland has been a pioneer in attempting to widen participation. As such, we enthusiastically endorse and promote the Government's broad ambitions. But we do not delude ourselves of the seriousness of the problems faced by all the universities in this country in seeking to deliver a sustainable widening in participation.
It is not only in this country that the problems are evident; other developed nations face remarkably similar challenges. The commentator, Will Hutton, in his latest book, The World We're In, sets out the situation in the United States. He states:
"In 1979, a student aged between 18 and 24 from the top quartile of income-earners was four times more likely to obtain a degree than a student from the bottom quartile. Yet by 1994, the latest year for which figures are available, the student from the top quartile was ten times more likely to obtain a degree. Given the trends in inequality, college costs and falling state support, this already disastrous ratio can only have got worse over the last eight years".
Surely any self-respecting nation believes that education should be about equality of opportunity, but, in the United States at least, inequality is hardening. There is a real danger that if we do not act, and act soon, the same is likely to happen here.
At the University of Sunderland our opportunity bursaries have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that whenever support for students from poorer backgrounds is available they do come forward. Unsurprisingly, our bursary scheme is heavily oversubscribed and we are faced with a level of expectation that we are unable to support.
744
The Universities UK report highlights the widely held view that the changes in support for students adopted post-1997,
"have been regressive, and a disincentive to participation".
It is especially depressing that this situation is being felt most keenly by those institutions with wider participation at the very centre of their mission—universities such as Lincoln and Liverpool John Moores.
Moreover, there is increasing evidence that the Excellence in Cities Gifted and Talented Initiative is largely benefiting young people who already have higher education firmly in their sights. Gifted young people from the low HE participation sectors of the UK—many of whom lack family aspiration and
adequate support mechanisms—are still, I am sad to
say, slipping through the net. This has to change, and we at Sunderland are developing specific proposals to address this.
The report also concludes that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds would not, as had been suggested,
"prefer to study in some form of flexible mode alongside employment or benefit".
Unfortunately, the facts of life for most of our students at Sunderland mean that, whatever their preference, they do find themselves studying and in employment at the same time. More than 60 per cent of our undergraduates are part-time workers. The university recognises that unless changes in the funding system emerge we will have to find the means and stratagems to fit the study and work patterns into which they are forced into an achievable whole.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that when financial problems and unfamiliar learning styles combine, it is the students from poorer backgrounds who find it hardest to cope. They face the task of simultaneously earning a living and coping with an ever more challenging curriculum with the very minimum of external support. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, suggested, a lack of grit; but it may well be a lack of self-belief.
Our strategy at Sunderland is to work with schools, colleges and other partners to address the underlying issues which at present result in low participation among disadvantaged families. We do not believe that any lasting change in patterns of participation can possibly occur in isolation.
To sum up, the choice for the nation as a whole is a stark one. Do we try to pretend that having an educated middle-class elite—10 or 20 per cent of the workforce—is somehow an adequate response to the challenges of global competition, or do we face up to the realities of that competition and find and fund new ways to harness the talents and skills of all of our people so that we can be reasonably confident of remaining, in every respect, a significant player on the global stage? There is no question in my mind which course of action is the right one.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I, too, welcome the debate and I thank the noble Baroness for initiating it. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who has made a great personal contribution to both standards and innovation in British education. I declare an interest as Chancellor of the University of Greenwich, a new university, albeit one which is housed in historic splendour.
We have achieved very high levels of participation and social inclusion, with a 95 per cent intake from the state sector, with 34 per cent from the three lowest social classes, with more than 25 per cent from those whose ethnicity is other than white, and a substantial and growing group of mature students. The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, was kind enough to refer to our new experiment at the Medway campus as a joint project with the University of Kent. Yet, as a new university in a relatively run-down part of south-east London, we have managed to combine that level of inclusion with a Queen's Award for Research last year and some valuable research specialities.
That experience leads me to ask the Government two questions. First, may we have a commitment that the Government and the department are not heading for a two-class university system in their search for the twin goals of excellence and inclusion?
We need diversity across the unified standards and experience of the British university system—in the expression used in the American Constitution, "E pluribus unum". We certainly do not want a reversion to the dreary British class system from which we all hoped that we were escaping. Yes, that may, and should, mean more state pupils at Oxbridge; but it also means that growth points of special research excellence at non-Russell Group universities should be sustained rather than moving to any sort of teaching-only model.
Perhaps I may quote briefly from one of the conclusions in the report of the Science and Technology Committee on the research assessment exercise that it carried out. In paragraph 51, on page 23 of the report, the committee states:
"50% participation is an admirable ambition but not if only 5% get an education of the highest standard … We are supportive of high-quality teaching in a high-quality research environment and find it hard to see how this can be reconciled with the concept of a teaching-only university".
My second question to the Government is this. Do they understand that expansion to 50 per cent—particularly if it is combined with greater measures for social inclusion, which as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has pointed out, does not necessarily go with a 50 per cent expansion, and hitherto has not—means, first, a long developmental process, possibly lasting five or six years; working with schools or colleges of further education to identify talent and develop it? Secondly, it means building motivation to apply to the universities, remembering that those from the poorest socio-economic groups are far more reluctant to get into debt—they have less experience of mortgages and less realisation of the potential lifetime benefits of a university education to sustain them in taking what is a
746
very difficult personal decision. Thirdly—carrying on with the development of a mental model—it means nurturing performance at university and, fourthly, providing sustaining help and encouragement. Unless those factors are present in a sustained way over a period of years, we see the results in deplorable levels of retention of students. We have far too high a dropout rate, as other speakers have said.
To provide that kind of intensive, sustaining developmental model to promising students is very expensive—which brings me to my final point. I hope that the department and HEFC understand that there is now a significant double bind on the newer universities. The dulcet voice of Jacob speaks of participation and excellence, and the hairy hands of HEFC are squeezing us until the pips squeak., for one, have expressed the hope—and I should like to hear this from the Minister when he replies—that some of the extra funds devoted, thank goodness, to education in the Chancellor's Budget will end up allowing newer universities to achieve both those admirable aims.
6.13 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, on introducing the debate, on initiating an excellent report and on being such an effective champion of universities. I look forward to the Minister's reply to the points that she raised.
I declare an interest. I am sorry that, after hearing speeches from two university chancellors, I cannot claim to be a third. However, I declare an interest as a member of the council of the University of Sussex (a more modest occupation) but also as the director of an educational charity which works with schools throughout the UK to raise achievement. It is from those joint perspectives that I express my views on the issues raised in the report. I see matters from two vantage points. I see the difficulty of keeping students in education in the first place; and then the difficulties for the university in persuading them to take the next step.
It is important to contextualise the debate snore widely. The Times Higher Education Supplement recently reported that there are presently 10,000 empty places in 50 universities across the UK. Many are in areas where there are already critical skills shortages. At the same time, the NFER which is sponsored by the Sutton Trust and has done a great deal of pioneering work, has proved that 20,000 bright sixth formers are lost each year to university, principally because they are worried about funding. I do not want to make a simplistic link between the two matters, but I hope that there will be an opportunity for a wider debate in this House on the links between effective education, which is at the heart of the debate, skills, and the needs of a knowledge-based economy.
Many of the case studies in the Universities UK report indicate that those links are being effectively made, and I have seen at first hand what it can mean. I have, for example, visited Youth Culture TV, which

747
takes students who know about television and who are passionate about it. It gives them the opportunity to build skills. It passports them into further and higher education, and they collect a career for life. It is extremely effective. It creates opportunities which those students want and on which they can follow through. That capacity for motivation must be at the heart of success.
If we are to address the fundamental points, we must recognise the scale of the problem. Going to university is simply not on the radar for many thousands of young people in our country. Recently, the University of the South Bank invited 120 nine year-olds to visit the university. When the vice-chancellor asked them whether any of them had ever been in a university before, not a single hand went up. I am sure that that is not a unique example.
The challenge is: how can we close the credibility and information gap? Providing living proof can work well. One Newcastle school in a very challenging area recently hit on the idea of inviting its first university student back to present prizes on speech day. It was living proof that students like him were capable of enjoying and getting on at university.
It must be said, however, that many young people have proof of a different kind. It is exceptionally difficult to motivate young men in particular, when all they know about higher education is that it leaves people in debt and without a firm guarantee of a job.
We must face some harsh facts. The average debt of £10,000 is more than many single parents earn in a year. The pressure on 16 to 18 year-olds to get out and earn is intense. Many of them have the experience of earning during their time in school. It is not something that they can or will give up. NUT research indicates that applications from mature students are down by 15 per cent, and from black and Afro-Caribbean students by 4 per cent. Although help with funding is available, I invite noble Lords to look at Table 16 in the National Audit Office report, which indicates that there are 11 different mandatory funds, five different social security benefits—one of which (and this is good news) will soon be out of date)—and six discretionary funds.
I warmly welcome all the Government's initiatives to motivate and enthuse students in regard to higher education. I share the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in relation to the Excellence Challenge and its powers to self-select; nevertheless, we are making a brave start. However, the challenge is to find all the missing students, and to make sure that they share the wealth of higher education.
The report drives home three important lessons to government. First, we must have a decision on student funding, and quickly, because it is casting a blight over student applications to universities, which is causing severe problems. We need a decision, and I hope that it will be in favour of some form of maintenance grant. Secondly, universities must act on the advice of the UK report to make what they are doing part of their
748
whole mission and extend the partnership with schools beyond where it is at present. Thirdly, that means starting not with sixth formers but with children in primary school, when those children are at their most impressionable and when their families are most involved.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and to your Lordships for missing the early part of her speech. She knows that I was earlier at a meeting—ironically at the University of London. She and I were sparring partners in the mid-1980s, when she was at the AUT and I was at the DES. She educated me then, and she has continued my education today. Because I left the DES as long ago as 1985, I am today essentially a traveller from an antique land—my only tangential contacts in the interim being with higher education institutions in my former constituency, some of which were generously misguided enough to give me honorary awards. I am also deputy chairman of the University of London council.
I find the document which underlies this debate more a collage or a quarry than a template or a manual, but I concur that the conclusions which harness all this creative energy are comprehensive. I find the distinction therein between widening and increasing participation a little academic, except in one regard, which in due course will reinforce my final conclusion.
However, the reference to social class in the title is central. Just as the social bias in the demography towards middle classes provided a booster rocket to the forecasts of my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking in 1988 and the explosion in participation between then and 1994, the opposite social bias in the immediate future demography after eight years of comparative standstill in student demand also offers an opportunity, however imprecisely predictable, for reasons fully documented in the Universities UK publication.
I am not here to dance on the grave of government forecasting of student demand. If it is errant, we gain, paradoxically, from studying why student demand forecasts go wrong. Overall, one is conscious when looking at future student demand of how many variables there are. Today, the literature about post-16 education raises the potential possible consequences from the Curriculum 2000, and this year's consultation on the 14 to 19 age group introduces further variables. Although I described working class demand as imprecisely predictable, 100,000 student places could flow from successful widening of participation. In the world of the contingent and the conditional, one is reminded of the adage of one's childhood that we could have ham and eggs if we had some ham and we had some eggs.
My concern is that, as we debated last week, the larger university scene has problems enough to deal with, including finance. It is important that those are solved. I am in favour of widening access for all sorts

749
of reasons, both practical and humane, but I do not want the larger problems to be complicated by diversion through the wider access issue, where there are also separate problems enough. While the problems of personal student finance are true, as other noble Lords have said, especially in a part of the community that is traditionally anxious about debt, there is the separate issue that the less well off tend to want—for reasons that perhaps need further research—to work close to home. The provision of relevant courses to meet that need locally may involve institutions in costs on top of those that extra access activity already imposes. Though I appreciate the funding council interest, which has come out in the past three or four years, I hope that the funding of this special area of wider access can be through new and additional government money.
I would not want that separatism to be treated as patronising or representing discontinuity with our educational history or tradition. I began with a phrase from Ozymandias. RAB Butler, the first of four members of the National Union of Students executive in 80 years to serve in the Cabinet—in his case often—was an exact school contemporary of my late father, who once heard RAB inadvertently amend the final line of Ozymandias,
"Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
so that it closed instead with the words "and beware". RAB's spirit would not have regarded wider access as a threat to an older tradition.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, at the London School of Economics, I am glad to be a member of the committee specifically dealing with access. This has enabled me to see at first hand the excitement of the Saturday schools and the rest. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Warwick, to whom we are all grateful for this debate, was right to pay a warm tribute to the staff and students who make such work possible and to the commitment and spirit of those participating from school.
As my noble friend rightly stressed, access matters because education is an indispensable investment in our future economic and social strength, in our freedom and democracy—if we take seriously its interdisciplinary and qualitative dimensions and not just its quantitative dimensions—in social inclusiveness and social cohesion and, perhaps most importantly of all, in people as individuals. We must avoid debasing it by a utilitarian approach alone. It has precious inherent value as an end in itself, enabling people to live more fully and creatively and to be what they are capable of being.
For all those reasons, the Government are right in their commitment to access. However, some key issues need to be addressed. My noble friend was unanswerably correct in stressing that if the Government will the ends, they must ensure the means. Access costs money. Whenever I look at the issue, I am struck by the fact that unit costs per student rise rather than fall. It costs more to bring in the
750
students at the fringe than those with already developed academic talent. Support once the students are within the system also costs money. If that support is not provided, there is a danger that we could reinforce a sense of failure by a cynical absence of the necessary resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, rightly referred to the pressures on academics. We all understand those pressures and the consequences that they may play safe in their admissions policy, but we must keep the emphasis on potential and not just on proven record. That brings us to the issue of excellence, as measured against the challenges of breadth of intake. Of course there is a need for a range of institutions. The former polytechnics have an important part to play, but it would be ill advised to throw the whole burden of extension on to them. We have to beware of social divisiveness. Our biggest challenges in the century ahead are those of social solidarity and cohesion. That is why I believe that the more prestigious institutions, anxious to open up beyond public schools alone, could be in danger of ending up exchanging one set of middle class students for another. They must look not just at their intake from state schools, but at their intake from nonselective schools and, most importantly, from inner city schools, which face so many demands.
Social mix can enhance the quality of education. It can bring maturity, wisdom and experience to balance cleverness. In turn, that can contribute powerfully to the social cohesion that we all seek. At the LSE, if we have learnt anything it is that there is a key part to be played by younger academics and students, to whom those at school can more easily relate. We have also learnt that we cannot start that process of stimulating interest too young. As has already been said, in too many parts of Britain there is no sense of the relevance of university to life. That has to be tackled at a young age.
I conclude with one observation that will not surprise your Lordships. Everything that we have been saying about access in the domestic context applies to overseas students as well. In our overseas student policies we must be committed to educating not just the wealthy from abroad, but those with potential.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for initiating this debate. Universities UK's wide-ranging report clearly shows where higher education institutions have increased participation among underrepresented groups and demonstrates how targeted initiatives are contributing to social inclusion. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that more needs to be done earlier, at school level.
As chancellor of De Montfort University, I can say that my university is passionately committed to widening participation and we have considerable experience in doing so. We estimate that 35 per cent of our undergraduate student population is drawn from under-represented groups. De Montfort University

751
consistently performs significantly above its national benchmark for widening participation—a benchmark that also encompasses mature students and students with disabilities. Our approach is a combination of providing targeted specialist support for such students and exploring innovative ways of widening access.
As your Lordships are well aware, students from under-represented groups are often ill prepared not only for university education, but for university life. They may have been disadvantaged earlier in the school system or may come from families and communities that have had little experience of higher education. Without personal and professional support to make the adjustment to university life and to instil confidence in their own potential, they are far more likely to drop out of their university studies, often perpetuating their perceptions of themselves as academic failures.
The services and support which De Montfort University aims to provide include trained financial advisers to help students manage their finances, cope practically and personally with debt and access hardship funds and bursaries; analysis of key skills before or immediately upon starting a university course to identify at an early stage what additional academic support students may need; a dedicated maths learning centre to enable students to reach basic levels of numeracy; and English language support for students who may not speak English as their first language.
We are also exploring innovative ways of broadening opportunities and access for students and reaching out directly into under-represented communities. The university has been recognised and praised by the Higher Education Funding Council for having established strategic partnerships with a network of further and higher education colleges across the region, bringing access opportunities and the experience of a university education to students who may need to study close to their home.
We are working in partnership with local schools and colleges directly to reach pupils aged 13 to 17 and inspire and persuade them to enter higher education, to recognise their skills and achievements, and to work with them to tackle areas where they need more support. In addition, we are actively working with a range of primary schools using undergraduate mentors to raise aspirations early in pupils' educational life. We are also committed to expanding opportunities for foundation degrees or part-time study, which are highly attractive to students from under-represented groups with lesser academic achievements or who may need to remain in full-time employment.
As noble Lords have heard, however, this additional support and outreach comes at a price. The postcode premium of 1000 per cent additional funding allocated to universities shows some recognition of this, but it does not reflect anything like the true cost of providing the necessary support, which is closer to a resource requirement of 20 to 25 per cent. Funding authorities must recognise that fact.
752
I should like to make two further observations. First, the Government have often faced criticism from those who say that widening participation will lead to decline in standards and in quality of higher education. I absolutely refute that view. On the contrary, I think that widening participation can contribute to enhancement of quality. The absence of formal or traditional entry qualifications does not mean that students lack talent or potential, but it does mean that we have to devote more time and resources to identifying and supporting such students. As a society we have a moral, ethical and economic obligation to provide talented people who for whatever reason have been disadvantaged and have not had opportunities to realise their full potential.
Secondly, talented students who can benefit from higher education deserve the best that higher education can offer, and that includes the chance to be exposed to research and academic scholarship that is at the cutting edge. Therefore, the argument for supporting only a few universities in research would, in my view, perpetuate disadvantage. De Montfort University is by far the leading new university in research, as our performance in the 2001 research assessment exercise demonstrated. Our students, regardless of their background, benefit from our research success, which informs the academic curriculum and inspires students to pursue postgraduate study. Supporting very few universities in research would defeat the objective of widening participation and maintaining standards and quality.
Widening participation is not just about meeting admission targets; it is about supporting those from underrepresented groups to stay in higher education and to receive the best possible education. Efforts by the higher education sector have to be matched by necessary financial support from the funding authorities. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, a waste of talent is not always a bad thing. Most Members of this place, for example, have the talent to become lawyers and accountants. We should be grateful that so many of them have wasted it.
When discussing increasing university participation to 50 per cent, which is a thoroughly good idea, we should think about broadening universities' offerings and the way in which they work with further education. It is no good trying to cram another 15 per cent of the population into the current courses. Although those courses may suit some of those undertaking them, others start them only because that is all that is on offer. Our higher education system has to offer courses that usefully demand the attention of half our population for three years. That is where we should be focusing attention.
I have been delighted by the descriptions of what universities are doing today. Nevertheless, I believe that the Government should be focusing, not on pushing 50 per cent of pupils into higher education,

753
but on providing suitable higher education opportunities for 50 per cent of people. Real action could be taken to make that happen.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, clearly explained, the information available to students considering university courses can be very inadequate. Students considering a geography course at Durham, for example, would like to know what former students are doing five years after completing the course and their own employment prospects. Students considering a more career-orientated course at an FE college would be told that information. They would also know what happened to students who had completed their study in the previous 15 or so years. They would have spoken to former students about the value of the course because it is the former students who help to recruit new ones. The providers of more general education do not provide such information, and the poor information that they do provide does not justify giving up three years of one's productive life or putting oneself £10,000 into debt. That is a great deal to ask of people, particularly those not from a rich and supportive family. People have to be confident that they can build a prosperous future on that type of educational base.
I am saddened by the attitude that some universities have taken to AS-levels and the key skills. Oxford and Cambridge dismissed them as if they did not exist. They seemed to say, "It doesn't matter what you do in your AS-levels; we pay no attention to them. We only want your final A-level grades. And key skills do not matter." Even those universities need to look beyond A-levels. It will always be possible for private schools to teach to a higher level than state schools. If universities remain narrowly focused on A-levels, they will find it very difficult to recruit the best students.
Elite universities also have to consider their prerequisites for new students. People wishing to study architecture, for example, must show a previous interest in architecture. But what are the opportunities for people from inner cities to show such an interest? The universities are excluding people from the start. I am delighted that the medical schools are finally realising that one consequence of their triple-A requirement has been to restrict most of their intake to students from the private system. Consequently, they have been overly restricting opportunities. They have to examine each course individually to see how the situation can be improved.
There is a great opportunity to get the situation right, but we have to progress gradually and use all the good will and talent that exist in the university system. Above all, we have to widen opportunities for students to reach higher education through further education. One problem is that some students from the state system are insufficiently educated to get on to the first rung of the ladder of better courses. Universities need to build partnerships with further education. They have to say to students, "Take a year out, go to this FE college and do this course. If you get the qualification, you can join us." Many art programmes require students to take a foundation course before joining. We should be promoting that sort of partnership and
754
flexibility to bring people in from the underrepresented areas and social classes rather than trying to impose a strait-jacket on universities by telling them to take in under-qualified pupils from under-performing state schools.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I declare an interest as an almost brand new Chancellor of the University of Glamorgan following the distinguished service of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. I have no expertise in the delivery of education but being a Minister responsible for education was part of my portfolio as the Welsh Secretary for five years. Having represented for over 40 years an industrial constituency with more than its share of deprivation, I know something of its problems.
I have found that an important marker of deprivation is the number of children on free school meals. I note that 62 per cent of the children in Peckham are in families dependent on benefits. The family itself is rapidly changing. It is reported today that 47.2 per cent of children in Wales are born to unmarried mothers. That is a challenge to society. We must respond to the need of such families for resources and practical encouragement from the school up. My attitude to education is simple: we cannot afford not to train and retrain and ensure that no one is deprived of training for lack of resources. We cannot afford to see our global competitors doing more. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, indicated that.
Three differing studies have caught my eye. The first, not unnaturally, concerned Glamorgan, The report states,
"that Glamorgan's scheme has made more progress than any of the original case studies. Widening participation seems to be something that Glamorgan enjoys doing".
At my installation I claimed that Glamorgan was an institution which admits more students from disadvantaged backgrounds than any other UK university.
The second study concerns the University of Wales colleges at Aberystwyth, at which the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, used to preside as vice-chancellor, and Lampeter. They are both in Ceredigion which is part of the title I am proud to bear, where I was born, where I live and where I took my first degree. Aberystwyth believes that the use of postcode funding is not sufficiently sensitive to disadvantage and in particular does not recognise rural disadvantage. While 50 per cent of students come from lower income backgrounds only 8 per cent qualify under the postcoding formula for premium funding. I should like the Minister to respond to that point.
The third quite different study concerns the Guy's, King's and St Thomas' School of Medicine, where, as we all know, there are areas of considerable deprivation. The study reported the comment,
"No one from Peckham will ever become a doctor".

755
The overall aim is to expand entry to the medical profession on the part of students from disadvantaged local communities. At the same time, the Dean of Medicine, Professor Gwyn Williams, declares,
"When I die it will be inscribed in my heart that this is not dumbing down medicine".
Their worry—I believe that we heard it from the noble Lord, Lord Norton—is finding the time, energy and resources to do that. It comes down to funding again. The Government must put their money where their mouth is. There must be no dumbing down generally. Our communities need excellence which is accessible and relevant to their needs.
I say in passing that I see no merit in the Government juggling the allocation of student places at some of our most prestigious institutions by what might be perceived as financial blackmail. The medical school has recognised that it is both in its own and the community's interest to attract the best. Admission tutors, after all, come from a whole range of schools. The answer lies in the expansion of places, as the medical school proposes, and at the same time giving practical encouragement to many more schools and students to raise standards and to aim high where there is that potential. That, I believe, is the heart of the problem—the preparation by schools.
Finally, I am seriously uneasy about students entering the working world with debts of more than £10,000, on average, as we have heard, or £30,000 in the case of medical students. The same dean said:
"The background I come from, which is South Wales, you did not go to university to get into debt".
That is also my background. The report acknowledges that student finance is one of the barriers to access. Wales and Scotland are acting differently, the price—or, is it the reward?—of devolution. It would be tragic if the Government in Whitehall did not move forward when the conclusions of the review are available. More importantly, we look forward to the Government's response.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, like other noble Lords I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for introducing this important debate. I congratulate her on the way in which she did so.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for briefly raising the issue of academic freedom. The quality of experience of undergraduate and postgraduate students and staff is critical if universities are to recruit and retain high quality students and staff. Some of your Lordships will know that in the Export Control Bill academic freedom is under threat.
Two weeks ago, on behalf of Universities UK, formerly known as the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and the Association of University Teachers, which represents 45,000 academic and academic related staff, I moved an amendment to the Export Control Bill. Without that amendment the Government would have had the power to control
756
co-operation between academics as well as the ability of academics to research and publish their work without first obtaining a licence, and foreign students would have had to work under licensed conditions. I am not sure whether noble Lords are aware that 75 per cent of the research students who come to our universities are from abroad.
That was a matter of great concern to a wide branch of academia and caused high concern to the whole of the scientific establishment. During the course of the debate on the amendment I suggested that,
"the Government's proposed provisions…are totally inappropriate in a country where universities have been centres of learning, research and discovery for over 900 years".—[Official Report, 18/4/02; col. 1109.]
I further suggested that not only would that inhibit foreign students from coming to our universities but it could also result in undergraduates preferring to study elsewhere and graduates and researchers also choosing to do their work elsewhere. Fortunately, your Lordships agreed with both myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who added her name to the amendment. Your Lordships' House passed the amendment with a substantial majority. I ask the Minister to use his influence with the Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry to accept our amendments when they arrive in the other place. It is not enough for our universities to attract students and postgraduates from all parts of the country and of the world. It is important that when they are here they should be free to conduct their work and their studies unhampered.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, it has been a privilege to listen to the debate and particularly the opening speech of my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe.
I come at this issue from two different directions but I hope with the same conclusion. I am a member of the Court of the University of Luton and I am also chairman of the appeal of Worcester College, Oxford. Luton is one of our newest universities and is about to celebrate its 10th birthday. It has one of the most diverse student populations in the country with 30 per cent coming from ethnic minority groups and 45 per cent over the age of 24. The local government wards which provide high levels of enrolment at the university have high levels of social deprivation. The university does a remarkable job in providing educational opportunities for people who a few years ago would have been ignored and forgotten by the system. It is rewarded with the satisfaction of achieving very high levels of graduate employment. Luton is among the top 10 universities in the UK for seeing its graduates get jobs.
The University of Oxford is also successful at seeing its alumni get employment as the number of Oxford graduates who are Members of your Lordships' House testifies. Last July I asked a Starred Question about removing financial barriers which deterred bright students from applying for a place at Oxford. I did so

757
in the aftermath of the Laura Spence affair to which my noble friend Lord Morgan referred. In her Answer, my noble friend Lady Ashton said:
"I should pay tribute to what Oxford is seeking to achieve. In so doing, I recognise the work that it has carried out with summer schools this year which was funded by both the HEFC and the Sutton Trust, as well as the links that have been made with local education authorities and schools".—[Official Report, 2417/01; col. 1840.]
Oxford and Cambridge hold regional "Oxbridge" conferences, inviting teachers and pupils to well-known sporting centres of excellence to take part in subject seminars, to meet current undergraduates and to learn about the admissions process. They have been to the football grounds of Manchester United and Newcastle United, to Wembley—when it was there—and to Murrayfield in Edinburgh. They have held regional conferences in Newcastle, Manchester, Cheltenham and Sandown this year which were attended by more than 8,000 pupils.
In that context, I should mention in particular the tutor for admissions at Magdalen College, Oxford—Andrew Hobson. That college was at the centre of the Laura Spence affair. Mr Hobson is a Geordie and a Newcastle United fan. After the storm over the non-admission of that student, he went back home, put on a Newcastle United shirt and was photographed in it, wrote a full-page article in the Newcastle Journal and urged youngsters to apply to Magdalen, pointing out that the college's colours were the same as Newcastle United's—black and white. The result was a 50 per cent increase in applications in 2001, compared with the year before. Very many applicants came from state schools, which had never sent anyone to the college before.
In a letter to me, Mr Hobson points out that,
"the Laura Spence year of medical students have just had their part one examination results, and Magdalen took the top two spots in the university".
He added:
"Perhaps our judgment was not so bad in hindsight".
On the question of academic excellence and widening participation, I agree wholeheartedly with the view of the Vice-Chancellor, Colin Lucas, who said in his 2000 oration:
"The improvement of access is in our own interest because it is in our interest to recruit as students the most talented young people we can find, in espective of social or school background, ethnicity or gender. We should be clear about how and why we select students; if we can improve our methods of differentiating between many talented candidates for few places and add new methods, then we should do so. What we cannot do is to abandon our independence of judgement and the methods which, after mature inspection, we know serve to secure its validity. We cannot compromise on quality at admissions".
He added—I am afraid that I agree with him in this regard, too—that academics, not Ministers, should make academic judgments about which students should be admitted.
Had we more time—we are very pressed for time — I would also like to refer in detail to the subject that my noble friend Lady Andrews mentioned; that is, the question of debt. The prospect of leaving university with an overdraft of as much as £10,000 is undoubtedly deterring many people from poorer families from even applying.
758
However, those are subjects for another day's debate. Meanwhile, I look forward to my noble friend's reply, which I hope will be as supportive as was my noble friend Lady Ashton of the efforts by Oxford and Cambridge to widen access without jeopardising academic excellence.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Vincent of Coleshill: My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for initiating this timely and relevant debate. In doing so, I should also declare an interest in my capacity as Chancellor of Cranfield University and as the Chairman of Governors of Imperial College, London.
I point out that both Cranfield University and Imperial College are concerned with high-quality teaching and research in science, technology and medicine, with the emphasis on their application to practical and useful purposes in an increasingly competitive international environment. I make clear their strong interest in providing opportunities for those from a broader range of social groups to benefit from a university education. But to achieve that effectively, as many noble Lords have emphasised, will call for significant action from the Government as well as the universities themselves. For example, interestingly, although this country appears from a recent HEFC report to have a similar social profile in its universities to that in most other nations in Europe, we have much smaller numbers staying on at secondary school or college among those aged between 16 and 18 in order to prepare adequately for a university education. That problem is particularly acute in subjects such as mathematics and the sciences, which are essential foundations for those studying science, engineering or medicine at university.
To that end—this is just an example—-our secondary schools need to recruit about 800 qualified physics teachers each year if they are to prepare adequate numbers of and give opportunities to students in those secondary schools to read science, engineering or medical degrees at university. However, I understand that against that requirement of 800 physics teachers each year, last year only some 80 initial applications were received. The implication of that speaks for itself.
Imperial College is seeking to close that gap by offering volunteer graduates in the relevant subjects to help local state secondary schools. We will be announcing next month a new funded initiative in that respect. But, fundamentally, those problems can be addressed comprehensively only in the state secondary schools themselves with appropriate support from government. While we offer the usual range of student accommodation at Imperial College, the much higher cost of living in London makes further heavy inroads into students' hard-pressed financial resources. Again, unless something more significant can be done about that by Her Majesty's Government in order to support the additional costs of widening access to higher education—that has already been recommended by

759
the Select Committee on Education and Skills—I fear that that will act as a further serious disincentive to broadening access in many cases.
In essence, the initiative to widen access to higher education is strongly supported in those universities with which I am associated. But the long-term foundations that are required to achieve it effectively need to be addressed by the Government as a matter of priority. If we do not do that, we will see at Imperial College, for example, more places on our science, engineering and medical degree courses being filled by very able and committed students from overseas who pay the full commercial fees for such education and, incidentally, achieve some of the best academic results. As welcome as our overseas students are, that outcome really cannot be in the long-term social and economic interests of this country.
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, while listening to this debate, it has been interesting to reflect that in Scotland, where there is a tradition of a higher proportion of the population than elsewhere in the United Kingdom entering higher education, the least well off at the present time are no more likely to enter higher education than they are elsewhere in Britain.
The Scottish Executive boasts that it has solved the problems for Scots by abolishing student fees. In fact, fees are simply postponed until a student begins to earn. For too many in Scotland, as elsewhere, the real problem is the cost of student maintenance. The Government's decision, so soon after they were elected, not to implement the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, is by far the biggest hurdle in the way of widening access today.
But, as is the case south of the Border, the Scottish universities are making a huge effort to widen access. I take as examples two universities with which I am familiar—the Open University and St Andrews. I declare a small interest as having an honorary degree at each.
The Open University is particularly strong in Scotland. Increasingly, it uses its own resources or combines them with those of others locally based to help unlikely people into higher education. A report on Scottish universities, Include Me, describes how that arrangement has worked for individuals. They include a young man in a low-paid job on the small Hebridean island of Muck; a 50 year-old worker at a nursery in Aberdeen; and a full-time mother and unpaid carer over 30 years in rural Perthshire. All are now studying for Open University degrees. One was assisted by the OU's fee-waiver scheme; the others arrived by way of local access courses funded by their local authorities.
This year, the Open University in Scotland has added a residential weekend at no charge for 40 participants aged 18 and over with few school qualifications. The places— allocated on a first-come, first-served basis—attracted enormous attention and the course was hugely oversubscribed.
760
At the other end of the spectrum, St Andrews is a small, ancient, rural-based university that is high in the quality research league and determined not to lower its standards and reputation one iota. St Andrews has few student recruitment problems, yet it goes to great lengths to widen access. It has an annual four-week summer school offering confidence-building practice in how to cope with the skills of academic study; write notes; revise; cope with exams; and use a library. The university's admission tutors pledge to take summer school performance into account when considering degree course admissions. The Royal Bank of Scotland assists with student support and offers bursaries—as does the university—for degree courses.
This year, St Andrews will run the first Sutton Trust-funded summer school in Scotland for 60 pupils from families and schools where higher education is not the norm. The trust is giving a three-year grant of £90,000. Every academic group in the university will take part. St Andrews also has a part-time evening degree programme with no specific entry requirements. At present, 80 students are studying a wide range of subjects and, as with the Open University, enthusiasm and the willing commitment of spare time are producing achievements well up to the university's high standards.
Those are but a few examples of the huge effort being made across Scotland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a Scots Member of Parliament. He seems worried about access for Scottish students. I suspect that the Chancellor exaggerates but whatever the findings of the current review, I hope that he and his Scottish Executive colleagues will sort out student funding—above all, student maintenance.
7.3 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I feel somewhat hesitant in view of the number of university chancellors who have declared their interests because I was a plain, common or garden teacher at the University of Sussex for some time and remain a visiting fellow.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for introducing this debate and to Universities UK for its excellent report on good practice in raising participation rates. That is a tribute also to the universities' flexibility and entrepreneurial spirit. The research assessment exercise set them a challenge and they rose to it. The sad part is that the Government have not woken up to the fact that universities have achieved so much.
In the early and mid-1990s, the great thing was for universities to make their research more relevant to industrial needs. If we look around now, we can see that they have done so splendidly. Universities have risen to the challenge by finding positive ways of opening their doors to students from lower social classes.
It has always been a mystery to these Benches that the Government fell into a paradox. Why did they increase tuition fees and switch from grants to loans at a time when they wanted to increase participation by

761
entrants from the lower social classes? As Claire Callender's figures show, the problems so created hit precisely the students whom the Government wanted to attract to university. Claire Callender demonstrated that for the lower social classes, the increased cost of entering university since the switchover in 1997 has been 35 per cent; whereas for students from the upper social classes it has been only 2.5 per cent.
Liberal Democrats do not believe that tuition fees should have been introduced. We say that education should be free at the point of access up to level 4. We go along with the Cubie proposals and the notion that students should pay something back, which was the concept behind endowments. Under those proposals, endowments would be used to finance a return to residential grants for lower-income students. It is much better that those who benefit should pay—but after graduation rather than before. We would like a mechanism for pouring back some money from graduates into means-tested grants.
How realistic is the Government's 50 per cent target? We feel that that useful round figure was plucked from the air—and that the Government had no idea how to achieve it but offered ex post justification. There is no shortage of graduates but there is a shortage of students with level 2—five A to C grade GCSEs—and level 3 qualifications. We place emphasis not on achieving the Government's nominal 50 per cent target but increasing the number of students with level 2 and 3. That is where the key skills gap is to be found—together with the productivity problem that the Chancellor identified time and time again in his Budget. We need to think hard about helping such students to gain level 2 and 3 vocational qualifications.
Students do not stay on at school largely because they are bored. They fail to see the relevance of the often over-academic A-level curriculum that is the route to university. Students want something more practical and hands-on. One can catch such students if one can devise something that they view as relevant. I may not like the noises that come out of the Guildford Academy for Contemporary Music but its students include school dropouts who are working hard. The academy links practical and academic studies.
Further education colleges provide a number of A-level study opportunities, particularly for students who are less academic. There has to be a climbing frame of qualification. We must introduce a parity of esteem between the vocational qualification and the academic qualification.
As for the idea of a Master of Arts, I should explain that, like the master craftsman, this would be someone who went through the process and then taught others. There is no reason why the plumbers who are training at our local further education colleges should not have some sort of progression structure whereby those who ultimately teach plumbers should become master craftsman and be recognised as having the equivalent of a Master of Arts, or a master's, degree. We desperately need to see that possibility coming
762
through—the concept of the climbing frame of qualifications—rather than just an apex with the academic qualifications at the top.
That brings me to a further issue which has not so far been mentioned in the debate despite the fact that it is probably one of the key issues in widening participation. I have in mind the role of part-time students. I am delighted that so many speakers have taken part in the debate, as distinct from last week when we debated the resources for education. On this occasion, we have heard much more about the 1992 universities. I take my hat off to what those universities have accomplished, and to the degree to which they are actually pulling in students by stimulating their interest. But no speaker has spoken about the difficulty of attracting part-time students. Indeed, if anything, the financing arrangements have put off such students.
It seems absurd that those who study part-time usually have to pay full fees. We are therefore making it more difficult for those who want to sign up to the Open University to do so, despite the fact that it is the cheapest and most efficient way to gain a degree in this country. All this applies to someone who wishes to study part-time. For example, the childcare arrangements available to those who study full-time at universities like Greenwich are not available to part-time students. Indeed, there are a whole range of these arrangements, which are extremely complex. By and large, if one looks through the detail, it appears that part-time students are excluded.
I am not honestly sure that we have the right vision here. We tend to visualise campus universities bringing in more students. We are living in very exciting times in terms of higher education: what we are actually seeing is a merging of further and higher education. There are now more students studying for higher education degrees, or studying for degrees at further education colleges, than there were in total at the time of the publication of the Robbins report. Further education is already playing an extremely important part in the higher education field.
We are also seeing a merging of full-time and part-time students. Twenty-five per cent of our students who are studying full-time are working over 20 hours a week to earn money, yet we class them as "full-time" students. Those who are honest and declare that they are working are classed as "full-time" students, and are consequently discriminated against. That is absurd. We must sort out this problem. We must introduce some equivalence.
We are also seeing a merging of distance and campus-based education. Universities are increasingly using distance learning courses. They are buying modules from the Open University and using them as part of their own courses. That is inevitable. Anyone who has visited America will know that there are more students studying of an evening in American universities than there are during the day. I am talking about the mixing and matching of distance and campus learning and of full-time and part-time learning, as well as the prospect of students being able

763
to take some courses at their local further education colleges and some at university. It is a question of opening the doors to knowledge, and bringing in people by constantly saying, "Come a little further", and so on. That is the kind of world that we must try to create in terms of higher education: it is one of continuing education, of lifelong learning. We must think in those terms and not in terms of cloistered cells.
7.14 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for initiating this debate. As we all know, the noble Baroness has a great responsibility to all who work in higher education, a responsibility that she has fulfilled today by focusing on the policy issues and their funding consequences that affect the future of our universities.
Perhaps I may say from the outset of the debate that we believe that access to higher education should be available to all who qualify, whatever their background; and that efforts to raise awareness of the benefits of higher education, particularly to bright young people from those groups that are underrepresented in higher education, should be supported and encouraged. However, we do not believe that university entrance standards should be compromised in any way, nor should admissions policies be distorted by exhortation, or threats, from government Ministers. As my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, and other noble Lords, have said, young people should be brought up at school to the standard for entrance to higher education.
The report produced by Universities UK, Social Class and Participation in Education, draws attention, interestingly, in its conclusions to the tensions and the distinction between, on the one hand, the Government's objectives of widening participation, and, on the other, increasing access to higher education. They clearly are not the same thing.
As the report points out, widening participation can be achieved without necessarily increasing access. Financial rewards and penalties related to the 50 per cent target can cause injustice. An interesting irony, which is highlighted by the case studies in the report, is that many of the institutions that are actively raising the awareness of young people from underrepresented groups, particularly those working with primary and secondary school children, do not necessarily directly benefit, even if they are successful. For example, Teesside University—from where I declare an interest by having received an honorary doctorate—has a very successful programme of working with young school children on Teesside, especially primary school children. Under the system, if a higher proportion of the children from that area eventually enter higher education across the United Kingdom, Teesside University will not necessarily gain the credit.
It does not help when Ministers threaten to withhold funding from universities if they do not meet the Government's targets. Many universities, usually
764
the more successful ones, have no difficulty filling places with appropriately qualified students. So, is it the intention of government that these universities should displace some of those students with the highest qualifications with others from "postcode premium areas", who may have lesser qualifications? Alternatively, should they expand their numbers to take all qualified applicants—in which case where is the funding coming from? Furthermore, should this be done against other institutions that have difficulty filling their places?
Incidentally, the money held by government to fund the "postcode premium" is top-sliced from the core budget of universities in the first place. Can the Minister say what is so secret about the list of postcodes that are used for special university entry status? There has been a reluctance to let MPs see the list. However, I believe that the list should be a matter for public information. No one is disadvantaged by having that information. Whatever happened to open government?
The letter received by my honourable friend Mr Brady in another place from the Higher Education Funding Council for England attempting to explain the "postcode premium system" should qualify for a wooden spoon award by the Plain English Society for sheer gobbledegook. I know that the Minister will do better in his reply to the debate.
It is important for the Minister to clarify in his response how the Government plan to address the tensions between the policy objectives of widening participation and of increasing access. I also wish to pose another question underpinning this whole debate. My honourable friend Alistair Burt, the shadow Minister for higher education, has been trying to elicit from government—but, so far, without success—a definition of "higher education". Again, perhaps the Minister will be give us a definition this evening. The answer is very pertinent to all those who work in higher education.
It is true that the unit of resource per student has been declining since 1989 to the present day. That is why the Dearing report was commissioned in 1996, with all-party support, to address the future funding of higher education. It is also the case that the introduction of tuition fees was meant to provide additional funding for higher education. Many of us took a very jaundiced view of the Government's pledge on this issue; and I have to say that we were right. We now know from the Permanent Secretary, speaking to the Select Committee in January 2002, that the amount of grant to universities has been cut by the same amount as fee income raised. Therefore, there has been no real-terms benefit to higher education from the introduction of tuition fees.
However, the burden of admitting an additional 30,000 students each year from now until 2010, with a higher proportion coming from under-represented groups, will put enormous strains on our universities. In the debate last week, and again today, so many issues, in addition to costs, have been raised in connection with the Government's policy of expansion.

765
Expansion should not result in the compromising of standards. It should not risk affecting the quality and quantity of research. Such expansion is causing, and will continue to cause, great tensions in the recruitment and retention of high-quality staff, especially given the Universities UK report findings that, in addition to the need for extra staff to cope with increasing numbers of students, there are problems with an existing ageing staff who will also need to be replaced.
A not unrelated but serious point is university pay. The Belt report has been outstanding for too long, and the Government really cannot go on saying that this is a matter for the universities alone. Their only source of funding is from the public purse and the Government bear a responsibility in this matter. The disproportionate cost of supporting underrepresented groups entering higher education, as quantified in the Universities UK report, also needs to be addressed.
In last week's debate, the noble Lord, Lord Moser, appealed to the Government to put their target of 50 per cent on hold, pending a step change in funding. While I have no difficulty with the aim of helping potential students by all means possible to reach the standards of entry to university, I have my doubts about specific quotas and believe that more could be done to persuade students to partake of high-quality options at further education colleges. Indeed, for many students, it could be the more appropriate decision.
There are so many sub-degree options leading to education and training awards provided by further education. They range from the highly practical subjects, such as plumbing, to take an example close to the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, to subjects such as electrical mechanics, catering, science and technology, business and communications, as well as foundation and link courses for higher education.
Further education is an important rung in the ladder as an end in itself, as a route into work and, for many people, as a link with higher education. The Minister should understand that the disquiet surrounding the Government's target is considerable. If the Government persist with the idea that an additional 30,000 students should enter university, with all the attendant support that will be required in each year to 2010, then the appeals for funding set out in the UUK report cannot be ignored.
I refer now to the point that I made in the debate last week concerning the Government's policy of social inclusion. The Government themselves have created disadvantages for young people from low-income families who wish to enter university. They abolished the assisted places scheme, which enabled bright young people from poor backgrounds to attend independent: schools. They set their face against selection on the grounds of academic ability. They abolished maintenance grants the greatest blow to students from the poorest families—and they introduced tuition fees.
766
The supreme irony is that it was a Labour Government who brought about a situation whereby the poorest students leave university with the greatest level of debt. That cannot be unrelated to the falling number of bright young people from poor backgrounds who enter university and the increasing drop-out rate of such students.
Despite all that has been said, the quality of research carried out in our universities is excellent. They produce good-quality students and, even now, the drop-out rate remains relatively low. However, that situation is very fragile, and the reputation of British university education is at risk. The debates both today and last Wednesday, together with the UUK report, have given the Government important information which must be considered and, I believe, with urgency.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this very wide-ranging debate. Predictably enough, every conceivable aspect of higher education has been covered. It is rather a tall order to respond in 20 minutes to all the points raised but, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Warwick on introducing this very important issue. I believe it is an indication of the importance that your Lordship's House places on widening participation that our debate has been of such high quality and has had so many participants.
At this stage, I join my noble friend in her tribute to the late Maggie Woodrow, who was the author of this report and who, sadly, died last October. There is no doubt that she championed wider participation, and her pioneering work and ceaseless dedication have helped to forge more equitable educational systems both within this country and throughout the European Access Network. I thank my noble friend Lord Puttnam for emphasising how much we need to widen access and the role which universities have to play in that.
Obviously higher education has a positive economic and social impact on people's lives. It is therefore: vital that it is available to all those who can benefit from it. We are a long way from achieving that goal. Despite a doubling of higher education students over the past 20 years—I pay due respect to noble Lords in this House who played their part in that as Ministers—there has been little progress in increasing the percentage of individuals from working-class families who enter higher education. That was a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, drew particular attention.
Fewer than 20 per cent of those individuals go on to university compared with almost half of those from professional families. That constitutes a real failure on our part to exploit the nation's human resources. It puts our economy at a disadvantage, and we compare poorly with other countries, such as the United States and Japan, in terms of the number of qualified students from higher education which their systems produce.
But beyond the cost of lost capital and lost opportunities, we must surely also recognise that the cost of that failure is borne by all our fellow citizens

767
who fail to realise their true potential and who fail to lead fulfilling careers and to contribute fully to our community.
Our determination to share the benefits of higher education more widely is reflected in our manifesto pledge that 50 per cent of those under the age of 30 should enter higher education by 2010. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, cast some aspersions about the value of that pledge. However, even though the Robbins report in the 1960s talked of the need to increase the number of those in higher education from 8 per cent, the noble Lord will recognise that there have always been Jeremiahs who have said either that it could not be done or that it could be done only with a reduction in standards in higher education and at enormous cost to the system. I can only say that that has not been proven in the past. It was not even accepted by the noble Lord himself when he was in office, and it will certainly not be accepted by me and my colleagues in government at present. We believe that we are in a position to unlock the potential of poorer sections of society who thus far have benefited far less from higher education than they should have done.
Perhaps I may reassure the House that it is not true that we have highly escalating drop-out rates. Of course, we must have regard to the quality of education and teaching and to the support given to students in order to ensure that drop-out rates do not reach what I believe are the cataclysmic levels that can be found in some systems. The French have ills of another kind at present, but let us not dwell upon those.
However, the expansion of recent years has not taken place on the basis of sharply increasing drop-out rates. In fact, the rates are fairly static. Of course, I recognise that it will be important to ensure that such rates do not increase in the future. We are already making a good start in relation to increasing access. More students than ever are entering higher education. Final UCAS figures for entry in 2001 showed a 5.6 per cent increase over the previous year, and applications are up compared with this time last year.
I want to assure noble Lords that we are certainly not seeing a massive acceleration in the number of students from poorer backgrounds; but nor are we seeing, as has been suggested, a significant reduction in applications from children from working-class homes because of the funding system. However, more of that anon. I shall address myself to the significant question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and others about the funding system.
The measures that we have already taken to drive up standards in schools and our proposal for improving the coherence of the 14 to 19 year-olds' curriculum will raise attainment and yield dividends in the coming years. More work needs to be done to encourage young people to participate, as noble Lords have emphasised, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. She spoke of a particular group of members
768
of our community who need to be encouraged to participate in higher education. Part of the Government's strategy is to ensure that.
The Excellence Challenge Programme and the Aim Higher Campaign have been designed to help raise attainment and aspiration in our schools and colleges. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Puttnam that the programme will ensure that we increase opportunities and aspirations in schools in regard to all our universities. I am deeply grateful for the work of those universities and higher education colleges that have engaged in this initiative, which now reaches out to over 1 million 13 to 19 year-olds.
Of course, we share with the House the widespread demand that the Government should recognise the achievements of higher education. We could not possibly have seen the achievements of recent years if it were not for the substantial co-operation and commitment of higher education staff. I am also aware that noble Lords on several sides of the House, not least my noble friend Lord Morgan, reflected on the trials and tribulations of academic staff and the challenges before them, as did the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. The demands made upon the system are appreciated. It is important that we keep bureaucratic demands to as low a level as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, we need to consider the career potentials of staff and the rewards that they receive.
I can reassure the House that in the expansion we do not intend to reduce the unit level of support for students. We have put a stop to that reduction. We are also committed to funding fully the increase in the number of students that we are projecting over the next few years. Certainly the programme for the years up to 2003–04 is one that is fully costed in terms of resources for higher education. I know that that does not mean that the shoe will not pinch in some cases. Institutions, like our universities and our colleges, can always use increased resources well and so improve quality. I have no doubt about the ability of the system to do that. However, I am seeking to offer the reassurance that the expansion is against the background of the recognition of the demands of the sector for proper resourcing.
There is another rich source of talent that we need to get into higher education. In this country there are 1 million people in their 20s who already have level three qualifications. If we are to attract those people into our universities, we need to develop new and more flexible forms of provision—the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—to enable them to earn and learn. There needs to be proper respect and consideration for the needs of part-time students who often appear to be an add-on to the equation of provision, whereas in reality they are an important part of the provision in higher education at present. I agree with the noble Baroness that part-time students and the form of provision provided for them are destined to be an increasing part of our overall provision in future.
The foundation degrees that got under way last September exemplify the innovative approach to teaching and learning required in higher education. As

769
the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated, such courses are for students with a vocational commitment who need the opportunity to develop their skills but who, otherwise, would find access difficult. The courses enable easy transition from further education courses so that students can move into higher education as and when required. The courses are designed in conjunction with employers, and they are vocational. They respond directly to the skill shortages at the associate professional level and are often available through part-time and web-based study that meets the needs of people leading busy lives.
So we meet an important thread within the debate. A significant number of students need to be attracted within a framework that is somewhat different from the traditional approach of the past. I have no doubt that universities are one of the main players in widening participation. They will need to engage in a wide range of activities to convince young people from less traditional backgrounds that higher education is for them too. Noble Lords have rightly identified that inevitably there is an element of sacrifice and commitment in engaging upon a higher education course.
Every university has its part to play, including the leading research universities. A great deal of commitment and determination is involved, and I am grateful for the efforts of so many institutions. I am also grateful to those institutions that in the past may have been charged, accurately or not, with having a less than solicitous attitude towards students from more limited backgrounds who now participate in schemes to which a number of noble Lords have rightly drawn attention.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, they participated before. The charges are totally untrue.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the argument obtains across a wide range of higher educational institutions I believe we have evidence of a redoubled activity in that respect. There is no doubt that from time to time we all need the spur and challenge of those who express some criticism of the way in which we act.
We recognise that the Universities UK report, Social Class and Participation in Higher Education, is a valuable contribution to the agenda. We recognise that the report builds on strong foundations going back a considerable way, and we recognize —my noble friend Lord Morgan has sought to reassure me—that the universities have been involved in generating a substantial momentum. I am heartened to see that the report shows just how much institutions are committed to widening participation and sharing good practice.
We are also greatly encouraged by the work that is taking place to encourage widening participation in the demanding subjects, such as medicine, where often students have come from a rather limited social background, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said. For the good of our health service and for the good of students, it is essential that we broaden those opportunities.
770
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Vincent, that we also recognise the point that he made about particular areas of high level vocational courses at Imperial College and Cranfield. He will know that Sir Gareth Roberts has just produced a report to the Government on science and engineering skills. We are examining his recommendations and I am sure that they will bear significant fruit in the near future.
All this means that we have to make effective use of existing moneys. The postcode system was raised but it defied the capacity of one of my colleagues to express it in plain English. I shall duck that challenge on this occasion. My English is probably not up to it. I can reassure the noble Baroness that HEFCE recognises that aspects of the postcode system scarcely meet the level of precision and accuracy that we require.
There have been many proper challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, drew some attention to that. I can reassure the House that we are looking forward to rather more sophisticated and more accurate measures than what we would all recognise were the first, early attempts to address the Issue. We also believe that rather more refined strategies would be—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, would the postcode list be published?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government will be responsible for ensuring that higher education institutions know exactly the opportunities that are before them and the criteria against which they will be operating.
But HEFCE has its responsibilities in those terms. It is not for me at this time to prescribe in greater detail the way in which HEFCE will operate. However, we shall certainly need to win the support and confidence of the institutions under the new structure, and we can rely upon our colleagues in that body to ensure that that takes place.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, under what clause of the Freedom of Information Act will this information continue to be withheld from us?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am being drawn down a rather devious route when I have only a minute or two in which to conclude the debate. So perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for not responding to that specific point.
I want to address myself to what was a central element in the debate this evening; that is, the issue of student finance. I can reassure my noble friend Lady Andrews that we are concerned to ensure that proper support is given to needy students. It will require a restructuring of student finance. My noble friend drew attention to specific groups. I have not the slightest doubt that they will fall within the criteria.
A review is taking place at the present time which will report in the fairly near future. Its job will be to sustain and support improved access to higher education. We take on board some of the criticisms advanced this evening about the present system,

771
though once again I seek to disabuse the House of the notion that the present system of financing higher education has led to a significant drop in applications from students from working class backgrounds. That is not sustained by the facts.
We recognise that the perception and reality of debt is an important factor for students. We may perhaps need to adjust to a different situation. We need all the resources we can get in higher education. There is no doubt that the new review will continue with the principles that have been adumbrated since we came to office. It is surely unfair that graduates who, on average, earn 35 per cent more than the average wage, should make no contribution to the education which gave them that advantage. So I can assure the House that the principles behind the review—as if anyone would doubt it—will be based upon some contribution from the state, some contribution from the student and a contribution from the families. However, we hope to produce a better system than the present system and that is the burden of the review.
I pay due tribute to those noble Lords who emphasise that we need to think about higher education in a broader perspective than has been the case in the past. I have no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, among others emphasised, that further education has a significant role to play. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, emphasised how many students follow higher education courses in our further education colleges. There is no doubt that the partnership that we need to forge not only between further and higher education, but also between the schools and further and higher education, is tremendously important in creating opportunities and ladders for progress. In the past entry to higher education has looked like a series of hurdles that people have to surmount. It is much more important that it be seen as a series of ladders which they can climb.
Therefore I share the view of noble Lords in welcoming this report. It reveals the real progress that the higher education sector is making and we should pay tribute to all those who have achieved those results. But we still have a long way to go. The Government's vision is to close the gap between the learning rich and the learning poor so that everyone has the opportunity to develop their talents to the full. I hope that this report and today's debate will give the sector a new stimulus to make progress in this important work.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comprehensive and sympathetic reply. I am also grateful for the contributions from all noble Lords throughout the House this evening. It has been an excellent debate. It has shown what a variety of insights can be offered from your Lordships' wide experience, even when shining the spotlight on a highly focused topic.
772
I realise that we are pressed for time so perhaps I can simply reflect on the fact that all noble Lords emphasised one point above all. To open opportunities from those from lower socio-economic groups will demand innovative and flexible responses and approaches and will require new resources. It cannot be done on current funding methods.
I leave noble Lords with a comment from John Knowles from the Access to Higher Education project at Lincoln University. He attended our parliamentary launch last month and his words sum up today's debate. He said that it is good to see so many students who have benefited from widening participation initiatives and to see the great and the good taking notice. I thank your Lordships for taking notice. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

European Capital of Culture
7.46 p.m.
Lord Lukerose to ask Her Majesty's Government by what criteria they will select the United Kingdom's entry for the European Capital of Culture for 2008.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I start my speech I should perhaps declare an interest as I deal in watercolours and have been known to sell watercolours of some of the cities in the list we are discussing.
In my researches for this debate the one word that came up most frequently was, naturally enough, "culture". So I thought I had better look it up in the dictionary. The most apt sounding definition that I could find was that it was the "intellectual side of civilisation". I am not at all sure that I know what that means. Can the Minister say whether that corresponds with the definition used by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport?
We are talking this evening about an annual award from the EU to what was originally the "European City of Culture", and at this present time still is but will be changed to the "Cultural Capital of Europe" in 2005. Up until 2004 each designated country in the EU will decide which of its cities to nominate and that will be the end of the matter. However, according to the DCMS briefing, from 2005 it appears that,
"The European institutions will take part in the selection procedure".
Can the Minister explain what that means? For instance, will the Government go through the procedure of selection and submit a city to the EU, only to be told by the aforesaid European institutions that they have selected an entirely different British city for 2008? If that is not the case, why are they creating their own selection panel at what must be considerable effort and cost?
The Government announced that they will run a Centres of Culture Award in parallel with the European Capital of Culture competition. That award will be given to each of the cities forming the short list for the ultimate award which will be chosen in March.

773
That is an excellent idea—but only if it is accompanied by a grant substantial enough for each city to make a real impact.
The list of British cities which have put in bids is a large and culturally formidable one. But it seems that the largest and most powerful city in cultural terms—of course I mean London—has not put itself forward. Why not? After all, Athens, Paris, Berlin and Madrid have all been cities of culture in their turn. Was London dissuaded from entering to make it easier to select from others in the list?
Of course, each of the cities which did put in a bid, ranging from Canterbury and Inverness to the leviathans such as Birmingham and Newcastle, has its own specific attributes, which make each one an excellent candidate for the award. The difficulty will be how to judge between one attribute and another. That must in the end be a subjective judgment that will call for a particularly adroit panel of judges. Can the Minister tell us tonight who the chairman will be? Perhaps she can announce the names of the other members as well. If not, perhaps she will tell us when that announcement will be made.
I come to the main reason for this debate: to elucidate the criteria by which the panel will determine its shortlist and eventually, next March, a winner—or will the final winner be chosen by the Prime Minister? There has been a report to that effect. Perhaps we shall hear about that later.
The guidelines published by the DCMS are broadly right but I shall suggest some criteria that I hope will not be used as well as some that I hope will. In my list, political correctness would have no place. Political opportunism, however tempting it may be to choose such and such a city, should in my reckoning be ignored. "Dumbing down", that particularly unattractive but nevertheless descriptive phrase, should not be included in any city's programme.
On the other hand, transport infrastructure is particularly important. Access by rail, air and road—and in certain cases sea—should all be really effective. What happened at the Dome, where the family car driver was virtually ignored, must not be allowed to happen. After all, the winning city will want to attract tourists and visitors from the rest of Britain as well as from abroad.
The winning city must have shown itself to be especially adept at exploiting the assets that it already has, as well as to be likely to have the collective imagination to find new and attractive ideas. To return to the guidelines issued by the DCMS, what does,
"the ability to display a city's cultural wealth within a European context",
mean? The guidelines also state:
"encourage other European States' participation".
Does that mean flamenco dancing in Inverness? Surely, people would visit to Inverness to see Highland dancing.
The object of a successful programme should be to uplift a city's citizens' ideas of culture. As I said, that means the liberal use of lively imaginations. It will be
774
extremely difficult for the panel to compare, for example, the attributes of Liverpool and Canterbury. I hope that they will bear in mind that a good little 'un can often be as good as a good big 'un. Fair and proportionate judgments are required.
I hope that, if nothing else, I have put forward some ideas that will stimulate a wide-ranging debate. I look forward to listening to your Lordships and, as always, I shall enjoy the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for initiating this debate. I must add that when I dealt with the noble Lord when I was a Whip in this House, I always found him to be fair. I am grateful to him for his colourful style in this House.
I am not sure that I require an explanation of the criteria that will be used to determine the successful bid. I have enough confidence in the Government to know that whoever is chosen, the selection will have been made for the right reasons. However, the debate gives me the opportunity to say a few words about my preferred bid.
The Government have asked local authorities to work with partners to develop a local cultural strategy. Whatever happens to the bids when they are finalised and whether or not they are successful, communities will benefit from the fact that they have had to work together to formulate the bids in the first place and are therefore more likely to work together in future.
I know from my experience on Tyneside that many years ago we were forced to work together by the circumstances at the time. In the early I 980s, the North East had unemployment thrust upon us almost overnight. At that time we in any case had the highest unemployment on the mainland. That was partly because of the economic climate, partly because of government policy and partly because, in industry, we as a region had all our eggs in one basket. That made us very vulnerable when downsizing and industrial decline came upon us.
Coal, steel, shipbuilding and heavy engineering were all affected. I hope that I never again have to witness the despair of families who have lost their only wage-earners so suddenly. Not just wages or jobs are lost when there is a rapid decline in a region's industrial base. The loss is much more long term than that. Training and skills are lost. It is much harder to start the wheels of industry again if a workforce must he trained once more.
I have touched on the past problems of the North East simply to highlight how far the region has come since then. Part of any criteria to qualify for the European Capital of Culture must be a city's ability to work together. That is where the Newcastle-Gateshead initiative scores so highly—for out of the problems of the 1980s, the North East decided that it could not survive on government handouts. Not that there were many of those around, as I recall.

775
After years of struggle, we created the Northern Development Company, which brought together the various elements of the region: industrialists, local authorities, trade unionists and educationists. It involved people from all political persuasions. That body had a number of successes during that period, including bringing the Japanese company, Nissan, to the region. It was the forerunner to the regional development agency, One North East. I am pleased to say that that now has a 10-year strategy that complements the region's new vibrancy.
As the Newcastle-Gateshead initiative clearly demonstrates, it is now an outward-looking region that is self-reliant and has vision, ambition and aspiration. But the North East has much more than that, it has a cultural distinctness that puts it apart from any other part of Britain. Establishing a strategic cultural partnership is not a problem for the region. In fact, it comes naturally. There are a warmth and trust that are easily recognisable and which make it much easier to create working relationships.
I do not intend to list all the attributes of the North, as they can be read in various publications. However, I recommend the Newcastle-Gateshead council's 10-year strategy for culture booklet which highlights much of the regions' culture: the beauty of Hadrian's Wall stretching across the region and through the city; the picturesque city of Durham; and the coastal city of Sunderland. Attractive as those cities may be, it is, however, the city of Newcastle that is recognised as the hub of the region.
I bring your Lordships' attention to recent developments on both sides of the Tyne. There is the Baltic, the centre for contemporary art, the new music centre on the Gateshead side of the Tyne and, of course, the quayside developments on the Newcastle side. I must admit that the last Tory government can, through its Development Corporation, take some credit for working with local authorities in promoting that development. However, I must make it clear that credit for vision and planning must go to the two excellent councils, so ably led by Tony Flynn and George Gill. Both men have a lot of vision and commitment to their community.
I should explain to those who are not aware of the region's geography that it is only the River Tyne that divides Gateshead and Newcastle; they are linked by numerous bridges. We feel justified in referring to the conurbation as "the city".
People in the North are more aware of and more involved in cultural activities because of the cultural enterprise shown in the area. The success of any cultural strategy depends substantially on the extent to which everyone feels included in the process. The Newcastle-Gateshead initiative is based firmly on the involvement of the communities in cultural activities. Whether or not the North East is successful in its bid to be the European Capital of Culture, we have learnt that cultural development can make a major contribution to real progress in the delivery of a
776
regional initiative. That is why the Newcastle-Gateshead initiative recognises that, to be truly effective, it must listen to and involve local people in delivering its programmes and ideas. Winning the title would hasten the process of developing well thought through, imaginative and realistic plans.
8.2 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I can only assume that the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, were not aware that European institutions would be involved in the selection process or they would have been in their places making their regular speeches about the iniquities of Europe.
I speak as a humble Back-Bencher. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will give the official party view on the matter. I come to the question in a genuine spirit of inquiry. I shall say nothing detrimental to the bids of any of the cities hoping for the accolade. I know how quickly "Good morning" leaflets can be got out on the eve of an election, and I do not want any derogatory comments from me about any of the competitors appearing in a last-minute leaflet.
It is worth asking why the prize is worth winning. As well as its artistic and cultural benefits, it brings enormous economic benefit to the winning city. That was first seen in Glasgow, where they had the "Glasgow's miles better" campaign. The city took the opportunity to remind an initially sceptical public of its cultural riches and re-positioned itself as a centre for inward investment by concentrating on the more positive aspects of life in the city and on its cultural merit.
What should the Government look for? Credible candidates must have a genuine cultural base. Even the most skilful PR campaign could not underpin a bid that did not have genuine cultural merit. The city must also have supportive civic leadership. A council with a poor record of support for cultural activities will quickly be found out. There must also be a cross-community vision, shared with local communities and business groups. The bid must fit in with an overall regeneration plan and be seen as bringing benefits to the candidate city and region. I understand why London is not applying; the preferred candidate should be a city that will get a positive benefit from a title that, for London, would simply be a cherry on the cake.
In some ways, the Minister will have to behave like a judge at a 1950s beauty contest of a kind that is now considered so politically incorrect. Various Members will parade the assets of their city before her, hoping that they will catch her eye. That is not, in itself, a bad thing. The process encourages cities and centres to "Search for the hero inside yourself", to use the words of the popular song. It causes communities and their civic leadership to look positively at the cultural aspects of their region, emphasise them and knit them together in a programme.
I make no secret of the fact that my preferred centre would be Liverpool. It would be a fitting culmination for its 800th anniversary celebration in 2008. It would

777
also be a fitting acknowledgement of the successful rehabilitation of the city after the bleakness and lunacy of the 1980s. Since childhood, I have thought about the awesome aspects of the city. There is its architecture, including St George's Hall, the Pier Head and the two cathedrals. There are also the eight art galleries, the Philharmonic, the three universities, the Albert Dock, the maritime museum and Tate Liverpool. All that represents a considerable concentration of artistic and cultural power. We can add the city's sporting heritage and its special place in popular entertainment. I am old enough to remember Ted Ray, Arthur Askey, Jimmy Tarbuck and Ken Dodd.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: What about George Formby?
Lord McNally: My Lords, George Formby was not from Liverpool. Tommy Handley was. Yes, ITMA. Dare I mention to the Government Front Bench the impact of the Beatles during the wonderful 60s?
Liverpool has certainly had an impact that will weigh heavily, but I do not want to demean any other bids.
In making the selection, the winner should be able to gain real benefit from the title, as Glasgow did, with "Glasgow's miles better". Liverpool has put its bid in under the title "The World in One City". It is part of a general economic, social and cultural programme that has the support of all the relevant regional authorities in the North West. Like me, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, is a former Member of Parliament for a north-western constituency, and he will know that the North West does not always speak with one voice in support of Liverpool.
There is a sense of unity and it would set a seal of self-confidence and self-esteem for Liverpool, which could be converted into jobs, investment and all-round environmental improvements. Liverpool perhaps paid a higher price than most for our change of direction from Empire to member of Europe. This European accolade could be a significant boost to a city which is already on the move.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and congratulate him on securing this timely and important debate today.
I begin by declaring a professional interest in the outcome of this selection process in that a company of which I am the non-executive chairman is helping to promote the Belfast bid. Perhaps more significantly for the purposes of this debate, however, is the fact that I wish to declare a personal interest. I am from Belfast and I am proud of it.
Two thousand and eight will be exactly 10 years on from the signing of the Belfast agreement. The race to be the European Capital of Culture allows Belfast the perfect opportunity to show the world that it is a much changed city. It is also an opportunity to put cultural flesh on the political hones of what the media like to
778
describe as the "peace process" and be able to show what we have done in those 10 crucial years of our history.
For well over a year now, a group of highly committed people from the arts, business, political, voluntary and sporting sectors have come together—and in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, have worked together—to prepare the bid on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland—not just the population of our capital city. That group, through the organisation "Imagine Belfast 2008", has been both creative and inclusive in developing our bid through, for instance, a postcard campaign across all of Northern Ireland asking people to "imagine" what they would like to see in their Belfast in 2008. This campaign brought in a huge response from right across the community and some of the best ideas were even projected in a special light show on to the famous Harland and Wolff cranes which dominate the Belfast skyline.
Winning this title would represent a massive opportunity to be brave, bold, pioneering and—dare I say it?—revolutionary about creating change in Northern Ireland. It is a chance to challenge every preconception and misconception about Belfast and an opportunity to present a new image which, in the long term, could help to reposition the city and all of Northern Ireland in the eyes of the rest of the UK, Europe and the world beyond. The bid has been given the full support of the Northern Ireland Executive and was warmly endorsed by First Minister David Trirn1Ple and Deputy First Minister Mark Durkan when it was delivered at the end of March.
However, a key message that I would like to convey to your Lordships today is my confidence that Belfast will be a very worthy representative of the United Kingdom should we be selected to become the UK's nominee for the European Capital of Culture in 2008. To be the UK's entry would be a badge we would wear with honour, while of course bringing our own distinctive Northern Ireland interpretation to our proposed activities. My confidence is based on the ideas within the Belfast bid document which represent a new approach to culture and to the arts, placing them at the very centre of our society and using a definition of culture that embraces every aspect of social, political and creative life in Northern Ireland.
I would also like to offer noble Lords the opportunity to examine this document to see for themselves the innovation and creativity that has been used in the proposal—helping to match the massive physical regeneration of Belfast that has been wrought in recent years. Indeed, I would urge your Lordships to come and see for yourselves how Belfast could and indeed should be a proud and worthy recipient of this honour.
If "Imagine Belfast 2008" is ultimately successful, I am sure that the confidence that I have in my home city will be fully appreciated by your Lordships.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend's Question gives us the opportunity to debate issues relating to cultural activities and aspirations in some of our great cities. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's reply to the various questions raised by my noble friend.
European culture in the context of the Council of Europe and the European Union plays a major role. As a former Member of the European Parliament and as a current member of the parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe, I am greatly involved in developing the continuity of our heritage and the need to define culture as widely as possible in order to ensure for the future that the peoples of Europe know and understand each other at least a little.
I believe that that can best be achieved through cultural activities. I also believe that it is a fundamental principle of our membership of the European institutions to try to work with and develop activities of common cultural interest. In that, the award of European City of Culture plays a very important role. We all know that Glasgow benefited enormously from being the chosen city some years ago. In the current year, the citizens in the fine city in the north of Portugal which holds the title—I believe it is Oporto—have greatly benefited from the influence it has brought.
Many noble Lords will know that, like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I have a strong association with and an attachment to Liverpool. Liverpool was one of the first cities to throw its hat in the ring for the award. I regret that it did not figure as one of the leviathans to which my noble friend referred in his opening remarks. However, like other applicant cities, Liverpool is, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, one of the great old industrial cities which has had to come to terms with its past in order to transform itself and find a new image and identity. It has gone a long way towards achieving that. It has received aid not only from central government but also from the European institutions. In that context, it can be said already to be a European city.
I know that I have no need to speak at great length in referring to the various attractions of Liverpool. However, as a former trustee of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, I cannot but sing the praises of the Walker and the plans for the updating of the Liverpool museum. I cannot help also but refer to the fine conservation centre which is one of the leading such centres not only in this country but in Europe and probably the world. There is the fine maritime museum and in terms of more popular culture the Beatles museum and so forth. There is the philharmonic orchestra, the playhouse and the three universities. As a great educational centre, Liverpool has a fine reputation and brings together many young people who make the centre of the city a vital place. But in addition to the atmosphere and the living environment, there are many fine buildings in the centre of Liverpool which owe their preservation and refurbishment to the need to accommodate students in central locations in the city. That, too, has been most satisfactory and refreshing.
780
As has already been said, from the world of sport Liverpool boasts two famous football teams and the Grand National, the greatest steeplechase horse race in the world. Many will also think of Liverpool as primarily a great sea port, with people coming into the city as well as those departing for other shores. As a consequence, we have a number of minority groups. We have the oldest Chinese community in the country. Many groups originating from other parts of the world came to Liverpool because of its success as a port and then stayed to make their homes in the city.
Together with the local authority, other institutions and several individuals, many of those groups have worked very hard on the bid to make Liverpool "the world in one city". To that end, perhaps I may quote a poem which was written with the bid for the European Capital of Culture in mind. It rather sums up the matter:
"The train is now leaving for two thousand and eight,
It's travelling to Liverpool, it'll be well worth the wait,
As Capital of Culture there's plenty to see,
Just listen to this, I'm sure you'll agree.
The first stop's the theatre,
Of which there are four.
The Empire and Everyman provide shows galore and,
The Neptune and Playhouse give you lots more.
The passengers want music,
What shall they do?
My answer is simple,
Your choice is of two.
The Phil provides tunes,
Of a classical sort,
For something more modern,
You have the Royal Court.
The museums and galleries come along thick and fast,
With Liverpool, Life and the Maritime showing the past,
For those wanting art you alight at the Tate,
Then there's the Walker and Sudley where the pictures are great.
And all through the city wherever you go,
You're reminded that this city was the home of John, Paul, George and Ringo".
I have ventured to quote the whole of that poem because it was published as the result of a competition across schools in the city, asking to children to set out their thoughts. The poem was written by Rebecca Loveridge, aged 11, a pupil at the Childwall Church of England Primary School. I think that it is an excellent example of how everyone in Liverpool is enthusiastic about this bid.
I do not doubt that by 2008 a very good bid will have won. Whatever happens, I believe that all those who are now participating in the bidding process will have focused their thoughts and efforts on securing success. In doing that, they will have achieved something for themselves, something that will be lasting. They will have achieved a great deal for all those who will be the future visitors to their cities, as well as for all those who in the future will go to live in them.
Again, I thank my noble friend for giving us an opportunity to debate this issue. I look forward to the reply from the noble Baroness.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we are all trying our best not to be too partisan. I wish to follow the general tone of the previous speakers by suggesting that the criteria that the Government should be adopting ought not to be entirely subjective and to argue strongly that, if we are considering the European Capital of Culture, then we should celebrate Britain's great regional and industrial cities.
What we saw with Glasgow as European City of Culture was a major opportunity very well taken to revive the city. It made a huge difference. To an extent we have seen the same effect in Bilbao, Toulouse and Bologna. They, too, used the opportunity of being nominated the European City of Culture to help them to turn around what had been left after the ravages of the industrial revolution and also to rediscover some of the older heritage behind it.
In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Luke, suggested that we have to avoid political correctness and dumbing down. However, I hope that we would all agree that any European Capital of Culture should not be only a city of high culture. When I worked in Oxford, as those open-topped buses drove past my room every 10 minutes with the loudspeakers telling tourists about the famous sites, I came to realise that there is a view of Britain which comprises the rapid high culture tour: London, Oxford, Stratford, Cambridge, Canterbury and off again. Many of us have worked hard to explain to visitors that there is much more to Britain than that.
I have to admit that the first time that Bradford launched itself as a centre of tourism, I was not entirely persuaded. It was not until the following February, when I was walking in a snowstorm with my family up from Howarth to the top of the Pennines to visit the farm that was thought to have been the original inspiration in Wuthering Heights, and then passing around 60 Japanese tourists along the way, that I understood that, in its own way, Bradford is also a real draw for foreign visitors. We have around 8 million visitors a year.
Part of a British strategy for tourism ought to concentrate on attracting more visitors to Liverpool, Bradford, Newcastle and Belfast, as well as to the more obvious places. After all, our great industrial cities are larger than many of Europe's other capital cities. Bradford is larger than Copenhagen; Liverpool is a great deal larger than Berne. Those cities were the creations of the 18th and 19th centuries and, in the nature of their growth, they were immigrant cities.
Between 1810 and 1840, the population of Bradford exploded tenfold. People came to the city from Scotland, Ireland and France; there is an area called "Little Germany" in the city. We still have the descendants of Armenians, as well as families from the great flood of East European Jews who arrived at the end of the last century. The Poles and the Ukrainians arrived at the end of the last war. Today, Bradford is home to a substantial population of people from South Asia and a smaller group from Jamaica, Grenada and other parts of the West Indies.
782
I still treasure the occasion when a British professor from Newcastle came to stay with us in Saltaire. He asked about the formation of new communities in Bradford. He spoke Gujarati, so we walked down to our local corner shop where we enjoyed a wonderful discussion about the complexities of the Gujarati communities—there are three of them—in Bradford.
The richness and diversity of the local culture of the great industrial cities is very much a part of what we should be celebrating. When we consider the European Capital of Culture, which should be a symbol of the future as well as one of the past, then part of what Britain does have to offer our European partners is the fact that we are now a multi-cultural country, that British citizens come from all kinds of backgrounds, colours, religions and attitudes, and that we manage that successfully. Often there may be tensions— we have endured some fairly strong tensions in Bradford over the past few years—but we do manage our multi-cultural diversity and we wish to celebrate it. We should be looking at heritage, at rediscovery, at reconstruction and at renaissance.
I am extremely proud that this year Saltaire was given World Heritage status. When we moved into the village, it was rapidly going downhill. I am extremely happy that we managed to buy a house there just at that point. Since then, a collection of l960s drop-outs, entrepreneurs who were not entirely sure that they wanted to play the normal game, have managed to persuade the council to turn the village around. That effort has been much helped by David Hockney and a range of other people who wanted to see Britain's industrial heritage preserved.
We now have a thriving village. We have a mill which, at its height, employed some 3,000 people. Today around 1,000 people work there for two electronics companies. It is a flourishing place which also has a great many paintings by David Hockney.
There are many other things that we might celebrate. The Hockney family comes from Idle, a village which is two villages further down the Aire and famous for its Idle working men's club. We need to cherish the industrial heritage which we have throughout the City of Bradford—as in. Newcastle, Liverpool and elsewhere—and to educate our young people about it.
There is also our mixed religious heritage—the chapels and the cemeteries. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, could tell the House a great deal about the beauties of Undercliffe cemetery in Bradford, which is second only to Highgate in the extravagance of its memorials. Some of the chapels have now been turned into mosques.
There are also the distinctive musical traditions, which in West Yorkshire are much to do with brass bands, the Black Dyke Mills being the best known band in the Bradford area. We have the literature of the industrial revolution—books by J.B. Priestly, the wonderful Armstrong novels about the way in which mill families behaved, and now Barbara Taylor Bradford.

783
There is the vibrancy of our sporting tradition. I am very proud that Saltaire cricket club now has a substantial number of good young Asians in its teams. It is the club that used to have Jim Laker as its professional in the 1930s. Indeed, Asian cricket is one of the most encouraging developments in West Yorkshire that we all wish to celebrate. The vibrancy of Asian culture and what it has brought in to West Yorkshire is celebrated in the Bradford Mela and in the quality of Bradford's Asian cooking.
Without being too partisan, the opportunity needs to be taken to celebrate Britain's cultural diversity and its industrial and civic heritage, which was allowed to run down in the 1950s and 1960s but is now slowly being rebuilt. It was taken exceedingly well in Glasgow. Let us make sure that we take the opportunity to do the same again.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, the European Capital of Culture should embody a vision of opportunity. It should not involve simply high culture nor the culture which allegedly made Goering reach for his revolver. It should be culture in the broad sense, in Max Weber's sense, embodying the social energies and aspirations of an entire community.
Perhaps I may suggest one or two possible criterion. Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, the candidate city should represent Britain as it is in all its diversity—a multi-cultural, polylingual Britain; a Britain that has been invigorated and renewed by immigration, by changes in Scotland and Wales and by its relationship with Europe.
It should also, in the famous term of my noble friend Lord Healey, have a hinterland—not only a geographical hinterland but a cultural hinterland. It should interact with the life of an entire region and embody its close links with that wider area. It should resonate and pulsate through many communities, including those in need of social and economic renovation. It should embody naturally a close and vibrant relationship with the whole of Europe, as would be appropriate for such a city. It should also embody in part the ideals of the young. It should convey a sense of renewal, as other noble Lords have said, and should not be elitist or ageist. It should embody the quality of life of every age group. It should convey and contain a cultural base with a great range of activities—social, intellectual and sporting. It should convey ways in which the cultural infrastructure can be taken forward and it should pass the test of sustainability.
That brings me, through a natural and seamless progression of logic, to the claim of Cardiff. I have no interest to declare. I do not come from Cardiff—I used to work in Swansea—and therefore support neither its rugby team nor its soccer team. However, it has a number of qualities which illustrate the wider theme. Cardiff has a hinterland. A bid from Cardiff, as the
784
noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will confirm, is a bid from Wales. It has the support of all 22 local authorities and has resonance all over the country. One feature of its bid will be a new programme of activity for Theatre Clwyd in Mold, which is in the far north-east of Wales. This will have an impact on Swansea, Newport and Merthyr. It benefits from being the home of the Welsh Assembly, which is strongly supporting the bid from Cardiff. The mere fact of devolution is reflected in the considerable cultural liberation of the City of Cardiff in all its aspects in recent years.
The point has been made—quite correctly—about multiculturalism. There is scarcely a city in these islands which has a stronger and longer tradition of multicultural interaction than the City of Cardiff. It has been a highly inclusive place for decades. For generations it has housed within it a large number of migrants from the Middle East, from Africa and from the Far East—and very harmoniously so. We shall not see tomorrow a threat from the British National Party in the port of Cardiff. Tiger Bay and Butetown are famous for nurturing icons of our culture—the singer Shirley Bassey, the rugby league player Billy Boston and the Olympic athlete Colin Jackson. It is symbolical that Cardiff should have a notable art centre in a chapel built in the 1870s for Norwegian seamen coming to Cardiff.
Cardiff also has a very strong Jewish community, which has given the world—not to mention the Labour Party—the great names of Silkin, Edelman, Abse and the family of my noble friend Lord Janner, who is not in his place.
Cardiff cradles above all a naturally bilingual, bicultural city. It is the home of key institutions in the world of the Welsh language—television companies, the Welsh Academi, the University of Wales and its press. I hope this will be reflected in the kind of considerations brought to bear in choosing the European City of Culture.
In spite of everything, those of us who speak Welsh number half a million. It is easily the most robust of the Celtic languages and it is relevant that in 2008 the National Eisteddfod of Wales will be meeting in Cardiff, as also will the Eisteddfod of Urdd Gobaith Cymru, the Welsh League of Youth.
Cardiff is also very much a European city—indeed, its multiculturalism gives Cardiff its outward dimension. It has a strong series of links with not only western Europe but with central and eastern Europe and the cultures of Poland, Romania and the Baltic states. This multiculturalism gives Cardiff its outward look.
Not many cities can be more effectively and completely described as a city of the young. In physical terms, Cardiff is rapidly growing—it has been since the 1980s—and many young people are coming to Cardiff.
The Bay area has been transformed as a haven for young people. In the world of pop culture—with which I am sure your Lordships are totally familiar—Cardiff houses slightly more recent groups than the Beatles, of whom the noble Lord, Lord McNally spoke

785
nostalgically. It has the Stereophonics and Catatonia, who are responsible for the famous disc, "Road Rage", and the memorable remark,
"Every morning I wake up and thank the Lord I'm Welsh".
Cardiff is also the home of major artistic institutions—the Welsh National Opera, which is outstanding —in the world, St David's Concert Hall, the National Museum of Wales, with its unique collection of impressionists, many other galleries, the Chapter Arts Centre, the third largest film festival in Britain and, not least, the Millennium rugby stadium, which has been a triumphant success. Compared with the shambles of Wembley, the Millennium stadium has been a great success, both architecturally and in terms of management. It will host the cup final on Saturday, where Arsenal will win. Many other developments are forecast which convey the theme of sustainability. I mention in particular the Wales Millennium Stadium, due for completion in 2004—a great new venue for opera, ballet and music.
Any cultural capital of Europe benefits enormously. This is an enormous spur to jobs, investment and growth. It would be beneficial for Cardiff and for the whole of the South Wales Valleys, which are suffering deep deprivation at the present time. Cardiff is an outward-looking city. Its history is a chronicle of social inclusion. It has an outward-looking identity, which nevertheless cradles the oldest culture in these islands—that of the nation of Wales. So I hope that the adjudicators, and indeed my noble friend the Minister, will bear these cogent points in mind.
8.41 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I have found the debate fascinating. One must thank the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for introducing it. I know the noble Lord to be a jolly chap. However, I thought I detected a slightly pessimistic note in his comments about this project—although perhaps it was due to the lateness of the hour. He does not need to be pessimistic. There is no downside to this project. A number of speakers mentioned the experience of Glasgow when it was the City of Culture. The dramatic transformation of that city indicates that we are on the right track.
My noble friend Lord McNally gave me rather a fright. I always get a fright when I am reminded that from this Front Bench I have the worthy and honourable job of representing the party view on these matters. We on these Benches view the project with the utmost optimism and favour. We congratulate the department on the way in which it has outlined the criteria that will be applied when a city is finally chosen.
It has been notable from the contributions that there are advocates of cities who are absent. We have heard very little about Canterbury, for example, or indeed Brighton and Hove; or about Norwich—where is the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis? We have heard little about Oxford. We shall no doubt hear noble Lords express their spirited support for those candidates.
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, need not worry too much about the definition of "culture". We all know what we mean by the word in this country. It is slightly
786
different in terms of emphasis and nuance from what is meant by culture—not high culture but culture generally—in other European countries. We are, as Her Majesty said in her admirable Golden Jubilee Address, a pragmatic and sensible nation. I agreed with those remarks. When we embark on cultural projects, we like to know how things work. We shall be asking the Minister to tell us in her reply how various aspects of the project will work in terms of selection and so forth.
I think that we can all agree that "culture" is civilisation. It is obviously about custom and history, it is about artistic achievement, it is about the quality of life in our country and in the cities and towns throughout our nation. It is right and proper that in reaching a decision the committee, and ultimately the Prime Minister, will take into account not only high culture, or culture as I have described it, but aspects of the life of these cities in terms of what can be done to increase their prosperity and decrease deprivation and exclusion. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, made a similar reference in relation to Belfast. It is an important part of the process. It may be cheering to the noble Lord to know—this may not come within his area of expertise—that Messrs William Hill make Belfast the narrow favourite in the betting.
I recall doing an interview on the Green some years ago for a French television programme. I was asked to explain what was all the fuss about the Poet Laureate—what was the Poet Laureate, and why were the British so exercised about the matter? I said that they were not exercised about the matter as such:, they were exercised about the fact that William Hill had produced its betting prices on it. They found that absolutely fascinating. I understand that when the programme was broadcast on TV 3 in France it engendered a good deal of interest: not all French people realised that, as well as being a cultural people—which we are, with our great literary culture and so forth—we are betting folk as well, and we like to mix all these things up. That is part of our culture.
Incidentally, Liverpool is second favourite, at 7 to 2. If asked to give a tip—which I advise everyone to ignore, because I am always tipping losers—although I do not want to burden Liverpool, I think that it must stand an excellent chance for all the reasons that have been given. Liverpool has everything. I speak as someone who has no axe to grind about Liverpool. I went there in my working youth, and spent some pretty dank days there, greeting ships coming in and discharging at the port. But I found the Walker Art Gallery fascinating, even as it was in the early 1960s.
I suggest to your Lordships that, outside London, Liverpool has become the most successful and important area of cultural activity—thanks to the excellent work of the late Sir Richard Foster, who died in such tragic circumstances and to whom we should offer belated thanks for the great work that he did there. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, nodding.
Apart from the great architectural and industrial traditions of Liverpool and its great entertainment and musical traditions, it has high culture as well. It is an

787
astonishing city. I do not think that we need to be coy about its history—if I may say this to the noble Baroness, who so passionately advocated Liverpool. It has a history in the triangular trade which involved slavery, but other cities in Europe did as well. We need to cease to be coy about the matter. To that extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Luke. Let us not be politically correct about that. If Liverpool is a serious candidate, let us take that as part of its culture and let us examine the way it has dealt with it. It merely adds to the strength of its candidature.
We listed the Liverpool entertainers, and I reminded the noble Lord of Tommy Handley, who was a great influence on my life, which shows one's age. There are many others. One has to mention Lily Savage, that wonderful comedian Mr O'Grady, who has unfortunately recently had a heart attack, as well as many others. It is always dangerous to mention Freddie Starr, but he is another talented entertainer from Merseyside along with Mr Jimmy Tarbuck and others. They are part of the lively entertainment culture of that city.
Other cities, of course, have everything to offer, and other noble Lords have put them forward. This is a very exciting and entertaining project. It can only add prestige to this country. It can produce euros and dollars for tourism, which is so important.
Perhaps I may end on the question about London, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Luke. We both love London. But London has a brand image of its own. England has no brand image in tourism, but London has a brand image, as does Scotland. To opt for London now, when there is so much that needs to be developed in other cities in order to expand tourism would be a mistake. That is no criticism of London, but to do so would be to miss a great opportunity.
Of course, Goring waved his revolver and used it to steal many works of art, so he cannot be considered entirely a man lacking in culture, even if he was only a psychopathic admirer of culture.
I wish the whole project well. I should like the noble Baroness to tell us more about the decision committee. Who is going to chair it? When is it going to sit? When is it going to produce a result? I have not understood— though there may be very good reasons—why on earth the losers are to become centres of cultural excellence. What is the thinking behind that? How do they qualify for that apart from by being the losers? It seems an odd, rather British idea.
8.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, like other speakers in the debate, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for introducing it, although, like the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I was sorry that he was not a little more upbeat about the competition, as every other speaker has been.
The European Capital of Culture programme is an important EU initiative to develop and promote the contribution that culture can make to a range of wider
788
agendas and to celebrate the importance of culture in the everyday life of our cities. That is something that we should celebrate.
Unlike every other speaker in the debate, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Luke, I am not backing any one of the 12. I have a completely open mind and I shall therefore be boringly non-partisan. However, before I go on in that vein, I congratulate all those who have spoken on their brilliant advocacy on behalf of each of the cities that they are backing. The cities might consider hiring all of them to be on their public relations committees, because they have all done a splendid job tonight.
I am delighted that 12 cities from across the UK have taken up the challenge and submitted bids for the competition to select the UK's nomination for 2008. No city has been leant on to bid or not to bid. It has been entirely a matter for the cities themselves.
Cities create a collective vision, which encourages participation in cultural experience, learning opportunities, growth and regeneration. They can celebrate the richness and diversity of our lives and our cultures and create opportunities for creativity to he cultivated and for growth to be stimulated.
The purpose of the European Capital of Culture, as a competition and as a title, is not simply to highlight existing culture and cultural excellence but to encourage cities to develop and innovate within the cultural sphere. That is what is particularly valuable about it. It is an opportunity to show that culture is central to the life of a city and to demonstrate the contribution of culture to regeneration, social inclusion, education and business.
The competition to select the UK's nomination provides a tremendous opportunity for cities across the UK to explore and develop their cultural heritage and their creative life. To be designated as European Capital of Culture is a great honour and, as a showcase for the cultural wealth of the chosen city, it is a great opportunity.
I am sure that all the cities that have entered the competition will benefit from the process of developing their bids, through building new partnerships and by identifying new and innovative ways of improving and enhancing their cultural life. I am also sure that the city that wins the title will be a magnificent showcase for its own cultural life and for the UK as a whole.
However, I emphasise that the competition is not just about winners and losers. We want all the cities to derive some benefit from taking part in the competition. I very much agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on that. The competition offers benefits for all the towns that have entered.
In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, when we launched the capital of culture competition, we announced that we would expand it in the UK and designate the shortlisted cities as centres of culture. That is desirable, because not everybody can win, but

789
just by dint of entering they will have put a lot of effort into developing their particular culture in the broadest sense of the term.
The Government's criteria, which are based on those developed by the EU, were set out in the document Criteria and Information for Applicants when we launched the competition. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for his broad welcome for the guidelines that we provided. For the record, perhaps I should briefly go through the criteria. Broadly speaking, they fall into one of three categories: objectives, programme and infrastructure.
The successful city will have clearly defined objectives for a year-long programme, and the ability to deliver them; the ability to create an event of excellence with maximum impact for all its residents and visitors; a programme of events that will increase awareness and participation in cultural opportunities, particularly among the young and within community groups; a programme of events that presents opportunities for learning and development for individuals and communities; the ability to ensure co-ordination and full partnership between stakeholders and investors; the ability to display the city's cultural wealth within a European context and encourage other European states' participation; the infrastructure to deliver the above or the ability to create it—the noble Lord, Lord Luke, particularly mentioned transport in that respect; the financial resources to deliver the above; a well developed tourism strategy for the year; a well developed media strategy that promotes it at home and abroad; a programme of events that is sustainable financially and in terms of projected attendance figures; and the ability to translate this into long-lasting benefits.
In making our assessment of the bids, we will obviously focus on the criteria that we have published, but we shall also ensure that the city that we select to be the UK's nomination will meet the EU's criteria. All the bids will be evaluated in the same way against the criteria.
As noble Lords are aware, we decided that the best approach to assess the bids would be to appoint an independent advisory panel. The panel will evaluate each of the bids against the criteria and produce a report and recommendations for Ministers to consider. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has already said, the final choice will be for the Prime Minister. We will announce the members of the advisory panel as soon as possible. The bids from the competing cities cover a broad cultural spectrum. We want to ensure that the expertise of the panel reflects this as far as possible. We shall appoint excellent people who will be able to do that difficult job. Listening to the debate this evening has reinforced my view that this will be by no means an easy task.
790
I was asked about the timetable. We are currently aiming to announce the shortlist in the late autumn and the final winner in spring 2003, although we will keep the timetable under review. The Prime Minister will submit our nomination, which has to reach the EU by the end of 2003. The EU requires each member state to submit its nomination no later than four years before the start of the year in which a city from that member state will hold the Capital of Culture title.
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, asked why the EU should have a selection panel of its own when the UK has already been through the process. I think it is reasonable that, as some EU money will certainly go into this, there should be a system whereby independent experts from the cultural sector are able simply to review the choices made by member states. I do not imagine that it will be a terribly time-consuming or expensive process. Indeed, I would expect the EU committee to endorse the UK's choice.
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, also asked about funding. As I said, we anticipate that the EU will provide some funding as it has done previously for the City of Culture programme. The Government have not yet made any decisions about government funding but we shall consider that in due course.
A number of speakers mentioned Glasgow. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord McNally, that Glasgow used the year and the title to great effect and benefited enormously from it. It had both economic and social benefits, and Glasgow made excellent use of the arts and culture both to strengthen and to communicate its own regeneration and vitality. I think that, on the basis of that example, we can all have high hopes for this competition for whichever city wins it. Glasgow in 1990 amply demonstrated the long-lasting cultural benefits that can be derived from taking on this challenge and doing it well.
Apart from a degree of partisanship, which is not at all unexpected in a debate of this kind, there has been a great deal of agreement across the House. I am sure that noble Lords will also agree when I say that the UK's cultural life is internationally known and acclaimed. The European Capital of Culture competition represents a great opportunity for our cities to harness their cultural assets and potential in search of a prize that is an excellent platform on which to celebrate our unique cultural successes. The city that is awarded the title will have an unparalleled opportunity to promote itself and its culture and to represent the UK on the international stage. Whichever city it is, I think that we should all wish it the very best for 2008.
House adjourned at two minutes past nine o'clock.

  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Community Service Orders
  Community Service Orders
  Wandsworth Prison: Healthcare Centre
  Wandsworth Prison: Healthcare Centre
  Biofuels: Excise Duty
  Biofuels: Excise Duty
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man: Taxation
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man: Taxation
  Business Taxation: EU Code of Conduct
  Business Taxation: EU Code of Conduct
  India and Pakistan: Export of Nuclear-related Goods
  India and Pakistan: Export of Nuclear-related Goods
  Biological and Toxin Weapons
  Biological and Toxin Weapons
  Lord Chancellor's Department: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Lord Chancellor's Department: Assets of Cultural Significance
  Gulf War: Vaccines
  Gulf War: Vaccines
  Afghanistan: Depleted Uranium
  Afghanistan: Depleted Uranium
  Gulf and Balkans Veterans: Depleted Uranium
  Gulf and Balkans Veterans: Depleted Uranium
  CPS: Damilola Taylor Case
  CPS: Damilola Taylor Case
  Railways
  Railways
  Planning Green Paper
  Planning Green Paper
  GCSE Syllabuses
  GCSE Syllabuses
  Cattle: TB Tests
  Cattle: TB Tests
  Marine Stewardship Report
  Marine Stewardship Report
  NHS: Funding for Treatment of Individual Patients
  NHS: Funding for Treatment of Individual Patients
  Sheep Meat
  Sheep Meat
  Aquariums
  Aquariums
  Coarse Fishing
  Coarse Fishing
  Online Gaming
  Online Gaming
  Gambling Commission
  Gambling Commission
  Prime Minister: Holiday in Egypt
  Prime Minister: Holiday in Egypt
  Ulster Scots Language
  Ulster Scots Language